SIXTH COLUMN

"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address: 6thColumn@6thcolumnagainstjihad.com.

Friday, December 31, 2004

Guaranteeing 2005

You can take the man out of the South but not the South out of the man, says the maxim. Over the decades, from all over the USA, even to Guam, the South travelled with me. Right now, I live far, far away from my southern roots, but, when it comes to New Year preparations, I dig into my heritage, as an inviolable tradition: Namely, how to get ready for the New Year and guarantee good luck all year.

It is no secret, neither for family nor for region, so I want to share this marvelous ritual with readers so that they too can have a full year of good luck.

Maybe Southerners are the only Americans who have a specific ritual meal for ushering in the New Year. I am ignorant of any other similar custom from any other region of America.

Well, here goes:

The meal is to be prepared in time for the clock crossing 2400 hours into the New Year, and the key ingredients are to be the very first thing in the mouth as the seconds of the newly arrived year tick off. No champagne, no nothing in the very new, New Year before the first bites of the traditional meal. After those first bites, then consume whatever you want. (What you eat and drink prior to 2400 hours has no influence, so indulge in advance freely).

The first essential dish is a preparation of black-eyed peas. Tradition suggests "hog jowl" be cooked with the peas, but we are vegetarians, so we use a ham analog. Our luck persists with this small change, so it does not upset the metaphysics. My wife makes a black-eyed pea casserole with a nip of Tabasco and a crust of cheddar on top. My, oh my, is it good!

The second essential dish must be turnip greens. Diced turnips are a neat addition as is some fatback, if you have it, or, in our case, some more ham analog. If you are unfamiliar with turnip greens, be advised that you must cook them at least 45 minutes for them to become tender. Be further advised that when they tenderize, they are scrumptious. If you are an afficianado, you know to dash a little vinegar on a steaming mound of turnip greens.

The third essential dish is corn bread. Don't get any of this Yankee "mix" that is all sweet. Get something like Martha White cornbread mix made with buttermilk, if you don't make it from scratch. Add cracklins if you have 'em, or crumbled bacon bits, or bacon analog.

With the instant of the arrival of the New Year, have a bite of each; it is crucial to start with the black-eyed peas. After that, you can just chow down on the rest for sheer enjoyment.

It always works. You never know what happens if you don't protect your luck using this tradition, because it never happens--if you follow the tradition. You just cannot know what does not occur. If, during the year, life events kick you in the teeth, just think of where you would have been kicked without this meal.

You can make and feed a passel of people this meal for about five dollars and really spread the good luck around.

You have nothing to lose, except bad luck--for the year. Hmm ...if every single one of us indulged in this good luck feast, perhaps it would change the course of history vis a vis the threat of Islam ...

HAPPY NEW YEAR! LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!

Thursday, December 30, 2004

Islamic Fear of the Free Mind

Broadcasting & Cable: The Business of Television, Fox's 24 Angers Muslim Group, by Jim Finkle, 12/29/2004

Two things Islam fears: freedom of thought and freedom of art. Both, of course are intimately related.

From the cited article:


Fox is under fire from at least one group for scenes in the Jan. 9 debut of drama 24 that portray a Muslim teen-ager and his parents as members of a terrorist cell plotting a mass attack on Americans.


One of the villains is a ... teenager who ... helps his parents mastermind a plot to kill large numbers of Americans that begins with an attack on a train.

Over the breakfast table, the father tells his son: “What we will accomplish today will change the world. We are fortunate that that our family has been chosen to do this.“Yes, father,” his son replies.


That it is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a so-called civil rights and advocacy group, doing the belly-aching should come as no surprise. This is a propagandizing pressure group which appears to have taken its training from Jesse Jackson and Malcom X and follows the example of the entire civil rights industry in playing race and victim cards over any imagined defamation.

Why did not Fox's 24 pick on Inuits as the villains? Duh!

Islam is the world villain, and Muslims carry out its villany. All Muslims? Of course not, but it is not Sherpas and Japanese trying to destroy the world, not even Inuits. What is, is. Muslims do jihad; non-Muslims do not.

The truth makes man free, and that is what Islamia fears. Freedom means free minds in free bodies. Free people act on their own self-repsonsibility. They work to the ends they determine to be important to them. And they do not force others to their ends.

Free minds find Islam repulsive, a truly proper response. People with authentic self-esteem find Islam repulsive. Islam mastered the art, if not the science, of human mind control centuries ago--thus, its jihadi robots by the millions over the centuries. Truly selfless automatons can be ruled and serve as cannon fodder in all of the endless conflicts Islam spawns. Free men blow off Islam.

Free men want to be creative. Free men want to be productive, using their minds to whatever they choose, whether local and mundane or on the scale of Leonardo, and all stops in between.

Free artistic minds created the scripts for Fox's 24, and performing artists along with bazillions of other artisans bring it to life.

Art makes values real to people. Art translates very complex philosophical ideas and principles into easily graspable entities, and art is essential to mankind for these reasons. Art requires free minds. Observe the quality of art from collectivized states. Art properly serves the needs of the artist and the consumer. That scares the pants off Islamists.

Organizations like C.A.I.R. want to intimidate free people into not criticizing Islam, not identifying Islam for what it is. They want things to be what they are not--you know, like Islam being a peaceful religion.

Free minds and free art blow off the desires for propaganda from C.A.I.R. and others. Islam cannot exist where free minds and free art coexist. Notice what passes for Islamic art: mostly decorated tiles and some noteworthy edifices. Note what is not in Islamic art: anything depicting life, humans, and human values. Islam is not for humans; it is for totalitarian rulers.

So, to Fox and 24, stick to your guns. It's Muslim jihadists, stupid, not Inuits and Sherpas. It's way past time to scare Islam right out of existence.




Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Imam's throat slit for saying peace prayers

Imam's throat slit for saying peace prayers

The details of this news report are horribly sketchy.

Here are the meatiest of the story's paragraphs:



DANWAKOTE (RAJOURI), DECEMBER 27: Piqued over the peace prayers at the local Jamia Masjid in non-descript hamlet of Danwakote in Rajouri district, militants last night abducted and slit the throat of the Imam of the mosque, sparking off a huge protest demonstration in the area.

Demanding visit of human rights organisation to the area, protesters said, “The killing of Imam has exposed the militants’ claim of carrying out jehad and their so-called sympathy with Muslims of the area.”


Khalil Ahmad was in a state of shock. He said from the dress and the chaste Punjabi language that gunmen spoke, it seemed that they were from Pakistan.


The take-home lesson is: Never forget what Islam and Jihad mean, and they will do to you what they did to the imam if you drop your guard. Islam is what Islam is. It is what it has always been and always will be. This ritual killing of the imam was classic jihadi in style and totally Islamic in meaning, namely killing to prevent peace.

In this Christmas season, good will to all men should not extend to those of Islam. Believe me, they have no good will for you or me.



Tuesday, December 28, 2004

NEWS ALERT!

NEWS ALERT!


Good grief, folks, the Muslims have been right all this time after all! THE KORAN IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE WORTH KNOWING! And since the Koran is eternal, that encompasses all knowledge!


How do I know this, you ask? Well, embedded within the Holy Scripture of Islam, the Koran, is an encryption of all this revealed knowledge that we never even suspected existed! I know about it because earlier this year, I cracked the code! I've been working like a dog (oops!) er, monkey (oops!) er, ape (oops!) er, pig (oops!)--oh well, I've been working REAL HARD on breaking the code!


I've only scratched the surface, of course, but I am now about to share with you just a few examples of this amazing Islamic knowledge! I just know that it's going to make our mean, nasty, reason-using Westerners jealous! I know it will make your reason-infested Western minds very uncomfortable, but I have worked SO hard on breaking the encryption that I feel I MUST let you in on all the Glorious Knowledge of Allah as revealed to the Perfect Man!


Here we go:


1) Allah revealed measurements of the supermassive black hole lying at our galaxy's center.

2) Allah revealed that the sugar "trehalose" stops Huntington's disease.

3) Allah revealed that cord blood harvested at birth boosts survival when injected into people with Hurler's syndrome, and in leukemia patients who don't have matching bone marrow donors.

4) Allah revealed that destroying healthy skin cells spurs the immune system to kill neighboring melanoma cells.

5) Allah revealed that nicotine halts the progression of severe sepsis, and that this is a way to help treat this lethal blood infection.

6) Allah revealed that longer telomeres on the tips of chromosomes mean longer life.

7) Allah revealed that miniature computers can be made of DNA, and that they are so small that trillions of them can fit into a drop of water. They can detect specific cancer genes and release a drug to block the genes' actions.

8) Allah revealed a solar cell that utilizes photosynthetic-protein complexes converts sunlight into electricity. (This encryption was particularly difficult to break; Allah made it difficult because it could conceivably bring substantial harm to the Fidels by allowing the Infidels to do an end-run around the Muslim-controlled oil fields.)

9) Allah revealed that by using a printing technique that emulates the way spiders spin silk, complex polymer microstructures with features small enough to be part of photonic crystals or scaffolds can be used for tissue engineering.

10) Allah revealed that paddle-shaped rotors made from individual molecules mounted on a gold surface in an electric field can form the basis of sensors or laser-protection coatings on soldiers' goggles (this one was also difficult, for fear that it would be used against the Fidels).

11) Allah revealed that there is a whole host of materials that use solar energy to split water and make clean-burning hydrogen fuel (this one was also difficult, for the reasons mentioned in 8) above).

12) Allah revealed that a cylinder made of densely packed carbon nanotubes functions as a filtering membrane that can be used to process crude oil and decontaminate drinking water (inasmuch as this was one of the techniques intended for use by the Fidels to harm the Infidels, this revelation was one of the most difficult of all to bring to light).

13) Allah revealed a means by which a tsunami's interaction with winds can explain certain observations associated with the big waves, and can thus enable them to be spotted long before they hit shore. (Allah made a provision that this means of detecting tsunamis should remain secret until the entire planet was converted to Islam; as a reward for the Fidels who would die due to tsunamis, he would make martyrs of them, and allow them to enter Paradise immediately, provided they were males.)

14) Allah revealed that subatomic B mesons show a matter-anti-matter disparity, and that's why there is so little anti-matter in the universe.

15) Allah revealed that highly energized quarks spin in the opposite direction from the neutrons and protons they inhabit.

16) Allah revealed that a bit of iron added to a refrigerant made of gadolinium, germanium,and silicon dramatically boosts the efficiency of magnetic refrigerators.

17) Allah revealed that calling a timeout before an attempted field-goal kick near the end of a football game is an effective defensive strategy.


Well, now! Don't all these Revelations just TYPIFY the kind of knowledge dropped out of the sky by Allah into Islamic universities and laboratories via the Koran? Don't you just wish like crazy that they had been revealed to Western scientists instead?


No wonder the Muslims win all the Nobel Prizes! Westerners are so burdened down with reason!


Damn, damn, damn! It just isn't FAIR! I'm going to go somewhere and have a temper-tantrum! Maybe I'll even eat worms (oops!) er, strap some explosives to my chest and go blow up a glorious Muslim university or lab or scientist somewhere!


Golly, I sure do wish Western science could reveal all that neat stuff to us the way Allah revealed it to Muhammad, The Perfect Man!


I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself -- Internment May Be the Best Answer

For years, as did many Americans, I swallowed the propaganda of the multicultural Left, believing that the big, bad United States had unfairly, and against their will, rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans during World War II. But of course we were wrong in our belief.

Today America is faced with the prospect of making a choice. The choice is to round up American citizens who happen to be Muslim and others, non-citizens to prevent a repetition of what happened in the Japanese-American community prior to and in the early moments of World War II: some Japanese American citizens and non-citizen aliens were collaborators and even agents of the Japanese government that worked tirelessly to infiltrate and undermine America at every level.

Daniel Pipes has refreshed my memory of Michelle Malkin’s book on the subject. Michelle Malkin has written an exposé of the attempt at historical revisionism that has occurred since World War II. In her book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror (Regnery), she has given us a review of historical record of the early 1940s:

· Within hours of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, two U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry, with no prior history of anti-Americanism, shockingly collaborated with a Japanese soldier against their fellow Hawaiians.

· The Japanese government established “an extensive espionage network within the United States” believed to include hundreds of agents.

· In contrast to loose talk about “American concentration camps,” the relocation camps for Japanese were “spartan facilities that were for the most part administered humanely.” As proof, she notes that over two hundred individuals voluntarily chose to move into the camps.

· The relocation process itself won praise from Carey McWilliams, a contemporary leftist critic (and future editor of The Nation), for taking place “without a hitch.”

· A federal panel that reviewed these issues in 1981-83, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, was, Malkin explains, “Stacked with left-leaning lawyers, politicians, and civil rights activists – but not a single military officer or intelligence expert.”

· The apology for internment by Ronald Reagan in 1988, plus the nearly US$1.65 billion in reparations paid to former internees were premised on faulty scholarship. In particular, it largely ignored the top-secret decoding of Japanese diplomatic traffic, codenamed the MAGIC messages, which revealed Tokyo’s plans to exploit Japanese-Americans.

Most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Government also interned Germans in the United States and in Central and South America through consultation with those governments. In turn, unlucky American citizens who were unable to return to the United States before December of 1941, were interned by the Germans and Japanese in various locations after the American declaration of war on those countries. However, the Germans and Japanese with great efficiency, had made advanced efforts to locate and dispense with foreign internees, whereas Americans had to scramble for a solution.

Throughout history, whenever possible, internment has been a tool for managing enemies. The other solution was elimination as internees can become a liability or a nuisance that some are unable or unwilling to tolerate.

Early on Europeans and then Americans notoriously interned prisoners in abysmal conditions. During the world-wide conflict between French and British dominance over North America, prisoners were interned, left to rot in the hulks of prison ships, a practice continued from previous wars and continued during the American Revolution. As well as on ships, internment in dungeons and filthy prisons, developed at the behest of the Inquisition, were the norm before the notorious 20th century death camps of both the Nazis and Japanese.

The American Civil War brought an improvement with prison camps where prisoners could at least see the sunlight, although some gained a notoriety of their own. The notorious Andersonville

Andersonville, or Camp Sumter as it was officially known, was one of the largest of many established prison camps during the American Civil War. It was built early in 1864 after Confederate officials decided to move the large number of Federal prisoners kept in and around Richmond, Virginia, to a place of greater security and a more abundant food supply. During the 14 months the prison existed, more than 45,000 Union Solders were confined here. Of these, almost 13,000 died from disease, poor sanitation, malnutrition, overcrowding, or exposure to the elements.


That Civil War camps could be improvements over dungeon ships, citadel dungeons, and prisons up to that time tells how abysmally prisoners were treated.

Modern Western prisons are no picnic, but they are a paradise in comparison to most other parts of the world. World War II Japanese-American internment or relocation camps were a “paradise” in comparison to the degrading and deprived conditions of the Nazis and the Japanese prisoner camps in the same way that most other countries’ prisons are when compared to those of the United States. No one wants to go to a camp or to prison, but almost all prisoners would rather be in a prison in the United States or Western Europe.

But we are talking about American citizens! Yes, American citizens can be sympathetic to the enemy and aid and abet their cause. Immigrants can lie when taking the citizenship oath and many Americans hold a dual-citizenship, meaning that they have a split allegiance between the loyalty they owe the United States and that of another country. How can they decide to which to be truly loyal?

Muslims have a further complication. Nationalism is frowned upon in the Muslim community, and even those that promote a Pan-Arab agenda are considered to be un-Islamic. Instead, Islamists demand that Muslims adhere to the Koranic ideal of a one world under Islam, a membership in the Umma, the community of Muslims in which nationality plays no part. Instead, the Ummah must be governed by Sha’ria law within the Islamic empire, the Caliphate. Thus, how can we judge the loyalty of American Muslims when some of them hold dual citizenship and all profess to be members of the Ummah?

Michelle Malkin has raised our conciousness with her book’s thesis, one that has received and continues to receive much criticism. In any case, we must look at internment in light of advantages and disadvantages as our country is under siege from without and from within. Although many Muslims and their supporters are loyal and are working for the United States, many are not. It is necessary to make arrangements and take precautions in case, out of necessity, we must move large numbers of people that are working against us into secure situations or for their protection if Americans feel that they are.

The solution that the Nazis took was torture and death, the Japanese were little better, reflecting the historical reality of internment until that time. The World War II American camps can not be compared to these in any respect.

During a time of war we all pull together for survival. Will Muslims step up to the plate and fight for American against their nihilistic Islamist co-religionists that want to destroy America and enslave or kill the non-Muslim population? If they aren’t willing to give one-hundred-percent of their loyalty to America, they are working for the enemy and should be interned.

6th Column Against Jihad is Back

The site is dead. Long live the site! The former version of 6th Column Against Jihad has been fully replaced by the redesigned version which is now up and at the same address.

We still have much more to do regarding content and tweakings. E.g., one of the "tweakings," the hit counter, refuses to work right now, and we have used an alternative email address for contacting us until we can get the newness out of the new system.

Hopefully all the links work correctly. We think we tested them all, but one or two might have escaped us. Please let us know if you find any flaws in the website: We want the mechanics to be in top shape so that we can focus on content.

For the website as well as this blog, we will be getting back to the fight, so to speak, shortly now that the website changeover has completed, and the holidays will soon be repacked until late 2005.

For the website and this blog, we are using the contact email address: sixthcolumn@hotmail.com

Sunday, December 26, 2004

Christmas Day Afterglow

In contrast to Maureen Dowd, the New York Times anti-Christmas nihilist whom we addressed earlier in December 2004, the following will consist of positive seasonal thoughts.

For my wife and myself, we could not get ready at home in time for Christmas again. The decorations and lights are still stored. In fact, we might not even be able to pass a public health inspection at home right now. And, here it is 26 December--Christmas Day has come and now gone for another year. Were we passed by our chance to enjoy the season? Are we unhappy? No, not at all, to both questions. Christmas did not pass us by (and we vow to be ready for it in 2005 by 1 December, which we did once in our 43 years of marriage).

Our kids are grown and have kids. One daughter lives in Florida while the other lives on the other side of the continent. Yet, we experienced the joy of family this year perhaps the best yet. Thanks to telephones and satellites, we renewed that very special adult-to-adult-but-adult-to-child bond with each.

My wife cooked one daughter's favorites, and we travelled to spend the day with her and her family. She, in turn, cooked all the things she loved that her mother made as she grew up. The grandchildren, of course, were into gifts, but they enjoyed all the adult company as much if not more than the exercise of childhood preoccupation with gifts. They just did it on their own, and it was refreshing.

While mother and daughter cooked and did mother-daughter interactions, my son-in-law showed me the movie Shrek 2. It turned out to be the perfect Christmas movie, just because it was such good, clean fun with highly intelligent wit. Its fun fit the day.

During the early afternoon, our Florida daughter called her sister to find out some details about she was making Yorkshire Pudding, a favorite of theirs growing up. Suddenly, I became palpably aware of how much of their mother and me they had internalized and treasured enough to extend to their own families. All of us had a long and rich discussion about this. As a result, I discovered that a number of things I had thought were of little significance to them when they were kids are in fact strong memory anchors now to childhood happiness with family. That was a WOW! I have come far enough along in life to start looking back and putting proper perspectives to life events, and this experience added a richness I had not known before.

We exchanged gifts and enjoyed its positive symbolism. This year, in particular, none of us had felt any need to court ulcers and migraine headaches in order to get these gifts. The gift were really tokens. The real gifts of the day and the season came from the day we were experiencing coast to coast.

Christmas is the purest celebration of values and valuing that we have each year. If the glow and good spirits do not persist through the year, at least we know that the next renewal is less than a year away.

For us, where we live, Christmas Day was marked by heavy, dark gray skies and steady, cold rain. We were warm, dry, well-lit, and happy, looking out on that day, celebrating what the human mind itself and ours in particular made possible. We celebrated life itself and the wonderful country which provided the milieu for capitalism to enable us to be healthy, wealthy, and wise. As for the wealth part, don't look for dollars. We don't have many, but we would not trade our circumstances with anyone else in any other country.

We are Americans, here and abroad, preserving and protecting our way of life by whatever our current life situations are. Fine young men and women find Christmas renewal even in the cesspool of Iraq. We were celebrating that also.

It's just great being an American!

NOTICE: 6TH COLUMN AGAINST JIHAD TO BE OFF-LINE BRIEFLY

On Monday, 27 December 2004, we will discontinue the current version of 6th Column Against Jihad and inaugurate a revised version. Hopefully this process will be seamless and will occur over a few hours instead of two days. Once back on line, we will have the same URL, some layout changes, and some new material. The same authors will continue. Other than the home page, the internal page addresses will differ from the old and some adjustment of links may be necessary.

This blog will remain in service throughout.

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Why This War On Christmas? (Part II)

What is Christmas? Saying it best is Leonard Peikoff:

Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling.


Regardless of how much Christians want it to be, Jesus is the reason for the season only for Christians. Christians would like sole possession over Christmas, and they have tried very hard to take over Christmas fully. There is, however, “the rest of the story,” to paraphrase Paul Harvey. Quoting again from the same article by Leonard Peikoff about the history of Christians and Christmas:

Historically, people have always celebrated the winter solstice as the time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the earth's return to life. Ancient Romans feasted and reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early Christians condemned these Roman celebrations -- they were waiting for the end of the world and had only scorn for earthly pleasures. By the fourth century, the pagans were worshipping the god of the sun on December 25, and the Christians came to a decision: if you can't stop 'em, join 'em. They claimed (contrary to known fact) that the date was Jesus' birthday, and usurped the solstice holiday for their Church.Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the next world, not this one. As Cotton Mather, an 18th-century clergyman, put it: "Can you in your consciences think that our Holy Savior is honored by mirth? … Shall it be said that at the birth of our Savior . . . we take time . . . to do actions that have much more of hell than of heaven in them?"


Christians should feel free to participate fully in Christmas and to enjoy it fully, joining the rest of us in the celebration of joy, but they should stop trying to claim sole origin and possession of the season. There is plenty of room for all to revel in Christmas in every manner people might choose. That is what America is about. Christmas belongs to all of us, including the Christians.

Sadly, however, religion, particularly Christianity, has given the Christmas trump card to the nihilists who dominate our journalistic and entertainment media, our colleges and universities, and most of our politics. Religion creates a sense of fundamental guilt through its ethics of self-sacrificial service to others and rejection of self, thus plays right into the hands of nihilism. E.g., think about why something like “political correctness” has succeeded so well. Its purveyors sold it as “brother love,” as caring more for others than self, and it caught on. Here is another example: Think about why something like “multiculturalism” has succeeded so well. Its purveyors sold it as putting others before self and never being selfish enough to think that your culture and values could in any way be more important than those of someone else from any other culture with any other values. How could religion protest and fight against core principles as these? The answer is, they could not. Thus, a prepared populace has fallen right into line.

One needed not to have been religious for this anti-ego, self-sacrificial ethics to have succeeded. A German philosopher, Kant, secularized the same ethics in the 18th century, and his version took over Western culture in the two centuries following. This ethics permeates through the Leftist “secular humanists” and the nihilists.

To this day, most people think that selfless service to others is the paragon of ethics. “Why, it has to be; otherwise it would not be so widely accepted everywhere by all as it is now. Right?” Wrong. Popular acceptance is no criterion of correctness.

What horrifies people who subscribe to this ethics is learning that this ethics is indispensable to Nazism, communism, Islam, and all other forms of totalitarianism. Rather than think this horror through, they turn their minds to idle, and that is what the nihilists count on.

“Political correctness” and “multiculturalism” have paralyzed America, and guilt is a major enabler for this paralysis. It makes the victims of this paralysis carry out the destruction of American FOR THE NIHILISTS, while thinking they are “doing good.” The assault on Christmas is a very visible manifestation, but only a tiny portion of the war to destroy American values, American valuers, and America itself.

In the forefront of this assault against America and Americans are activist judges, “making law.” They hide behind extremely “liberal” interpretations of the law which deform the culture through such acts as changing “Christmas trees” into “Holiday trees,” then into no trees at all. They remove any trace they can of traditional and beloved Christmas carols, and throw all vestiges of Christmas into the scrapheap of history by castigating it as “Christian.” That changes these values legally into NEGATIVES, to be removed from any place or thing where any non-Christian citizen can become aware of them--because they supposedly violate the separation of religion and state. That is the enabling “package deal.” You think you are dealing with one thing only to find nasty surprises hidden in the package.

Of course, state and religion must remain legally separated. Freedom requires such separation, but the principle separates the power of the state from forming or enforcing any religion. What gums up understanding (more of the “package deal”) is the prodigious growth of the “public sector.” Thanks to socialists, government now invades most aspects of Americans’ lives. With that invasion comes public funding. Activist judges use the existence of “public funding” as their wedge to over-interpret law to fit their leftist agendas, which are fundamentally nihilistic: the dismantling of America, a piece at a time. This is what groups all sorts of disparate-appearing phenomena into an understandable whole, over the entire culture. Celebrating Christmas does not logically fall under the religion:state separation principle. However, these activist judges and their fellow travelers are trying to stretch their control to more and more aspects of American culture by means of legal precedents.

I stand with anyone who wants to preserve Christmas. As Leonard Peikoff says,

All the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happiness.


This is the real meaning of Christmas, and it is the foundation celebration of capitalism, just as the 4th of July is the celebration of America and freedom. I can stand with any Christians or Jews, or anyone else, rejoicing about Christmas. If they do not try to take my celebration away, I will not try to take theirs away. Quite to the contrary, I will fight to preserve and protect their Christmas as their rights to celebrate however they wish.

The war on Christmas must be understood as a war on values and valuers. The values are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, prosperity, and capitalism, all uniquely American values which many subgroups share in whole or in part, in the free celebration of Christmas. The war on Christmas is really a war on America. Let us not stand for this war, and let us not let the nihilists take Christmas for us, whether religious or not, and, by no means, take America from us.

Merry Christmas—and Happy New Year!

Christmas in the Combat Zone

Thinking about doing something for the troops for Christmas? There are many websites that give helpful suggestions and links. An example of something that would be appreciated is a prepaid phone card.

Author Lt.Col. Gordon Cucullo has several in his story, "Christmas in the Combat Zone."

A Merry Christmas to all, and a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Why This War On Christmas? (Part I)

Look out! It is Christmas Season again, and the war is back on. The anti-Christmas contingents have come out from under their rocks and porches, hell bent on annihilating Christmas.

We find the “usual suspects”: Those FOR CHRISTMAS versus those AGAINST CHRISTMAS. Each is fighting for dominance. For those who love Christmas, the fight is to preserve and protect all aspects of the season. Anti-Christmas forces want all manifestations of Christmas removed from schools, public and private institutions, and buildings, displays, broadcasting media, and, you name it.

Most, but not all, pro-Christmas forces are Christians, and they quite naturally envision Christmas as the property of Christianity. Their numbers are so great that what other pro-Christmas forces have to say too often goes unheard. Because of the numbers and their annual polemics, most people concede that Christmas belongs solely to the Christians. I do not concede that point, however.

Anti-Christmas forces appear to be diverse, but they unite about one central moral evil (which we will discuss later in this article). The noisiest religious members of this force are Muslims--almost all other religions have found ways to share the spirit of the season. The rest of anti-Christmas forces belong to a large group huddled under the umbrella of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” A few claim that they are supporters of the Constitution of the United States; and, to be correct, there is a smaller subgroup of this subgroup legitimately seeking to uphold the legitimate Constitutional separation of religion and state. However, most of the anti-Christmas crowd use legal lingo as a subterfuge to disguise their real intent.

Very many people sense that there is something very wrong in this war on Christmas. What is wrong seems to belong to a much bigger war against American values, and possibly even against America itself. Christians protest the most, and they are right. However, the issue befuddles most people because it exists as a typical, contemporary, and opaque intellectual “package deal” of issues nested out of sight within issues, like a set of Russian nesting dolls. American education has very effectively disarmed Americans intellectually to the point that they are unable to tease out the issues. The resulting confusion and fog obscure an underlying colossal evil. This evil is actually what people sense, and this evil makes the war on Christmas far bigger than a war on Christianity, or even religion itself. It is at least as big as America and the West.

Let us locate and identify this evil. To do so, we must first separate the layers of “combatants” and what they are fight for and against.

We begin with the hardcore Christian faction, which sees Christmas solely as the celebration of Jesus’ birthday, as a solely Christian opportunity not for personal joy unless it is directed toward gratitude that Jesus was born. They decry the glitz, glitter, and “materialism,” because these take away from selfless spirituality and communion with God.

A much larger and more moderate Christian subgroup makes room both for Christ and Caesar, so to speak, to enable all of them to enjoy most things about Christmas. Those in this large group range from the actively religious all the way to the passively religious.

The last group consists of those who belong to other religions such as Judaism and Hinduism and atheists. All enjoy Christmas for non-Christian reasons.

The anti-Christmas crowd’s most obvious subgroup consists of people who participate in Christmas but are totally caught up conforming to “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” Some may be religious to some extent; some are secular. All are trendy. They are a herd, one which follows the mores-of-the-moment, and “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” are the mores prevailing in our culture.

“Political correctness” and “multiculturalism” mean to this first subset that they must contort themselves severely and constantly to avoid offending a “someone” who “might possibly be offended” by “anything” suggesting religion in Christmas decorations, songs, and rituals. They never see their own absurdity. In fact, they feel like morally superior angels carrying out this “brother-love.” They remove Christmas from schools, from textual materials, and from being mentioned in classes and groups. They take away decorated trees because such trees are almost always called “Christmas trees.” These people mimic those loyal Germans who went about carrying out the practices of Nazism in ordinary life in Nazi Germany. These Germans and these politically correct trendies are just “doing their duty.” It is frightening to see the awful similarity.

These trendies think along the line of “Suppose some Muslim sees or hears or reads anything related to Christmas, which is, after all, indubitably Christianity, and interprets this as an offense to Islam?” Talk about compartmentalizing thinking! They worry about not offending Muslims but fail themselves to be offended by jihad and by an entire religion which wants to enslave or murder them. They fail as well to recognize that Muslims make no effort to “respect” Christians, Jews, or anyone else who is not Muslim. These trendies are the “useful idiots” of the really evil crowd.

Underneath the trendies lurk the nihilists, conveniently obscured by all of the concern with political correctness and multiculturalism. These are the people who pushed political correctness onto the cultural stage and made it popular—a fact that few people recognize. Why did they create political correctness and multiculturalism? To understand fully, you must read David Horowitz’s new book Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. And, if you want to understand the root issues and the fundamental causes, read Leonard Peikoff’s book Ominous Parallels. Both are reviewed on 6th Column Against Jihad. It is this nihilism that is the great evil lurking behind the skirts of the war on Christmas.

Not everyone who hates something is a nihilist, and it is important to recognize that fact. Yes, there are people who hate Christmas, and there are people who hate Christians. These are haters of specific values and valuers. Most of these just hate enough aspects of the Christmas season to merit the epithet of “Grinches,” these days.

Value-hating, left uncorrected, spreads. Eventually it devolves into nihilism. What separates nihilists from routine haters and Grinches is that they hate the concepts of values and the virtue of valuing. That, after all, is the literal meaning of nihilism. Particularly, nihilists hate the good for being good, and they tear down values wherever they may be found.

Nihilism is what unites the American Left and the jihadists these days. Both hate America and want to destroy it. By hating America, they hate anything of value within it and all things that can be construed to represent America. They attack Christmas relentlessly because Christmas is THE “value and valuing season.” Nothing else like it occurs at any time the rest of an entire year.

[This article concludes tomorrow on this site.]

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Sharia in America -- A Satire

Sharia in America

By Ayesha Ahmed

Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

…Consider the following advantages:

- America can go to jihad against non Muslim countries. It will bring immense wealth in booty and millions of captured women. Canada and Mexico can be easy targets and are conveniently located for easy assault and hauling of booty.

-Since slavery will be allowed government can open slave markets to sell it's 20% share of the captured women.

-Captured women/slave-girls can provide affordable domestic help for house wives and clean enjoyable sex for their husbands.

-Enslaved men can be used as farm labor and factory workers at a much lower cost than unionized labor.

-Unemployed men from the prohibited non Islamic businesses like TV, Photography, computers, mortgage companies, music industry etc can be hired as religious police for the Ministry of Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtues . They can be used to beat up women violating burqa laws, arrest men with undersize beards and whip the non religious types found loitering at prayer times.

-Since men will be allowed four wives and unlimited number of slave girls, population boom will result in making the fastest growing religion grow even faster.

-All non muslims will live under dhimmi rules and pay heavy Jizya. Budget deficits will be a thing of the past.

Stoning of adulterers, whipping of alcohol drinkers, cutting of hands and feet of thieves and beheadings of apostates can be carried out after Juma prayers on Fridays in the local stadium. Gate charge for this gory and exciting weekly spectacle can generate a lot of revenue.

-Unemployed male gynecologists can be hired to carry out circumcisions of new male converts.

-Female circumcision can be made mandatory to promote piety and holiness and discourage lewdness among women.

-Marriage age for girls can be lowered to 6 years. That will reduce the burden of support of large poorer families and also promote a sunna, the tradition set by the holy prophet (peace be up on him).

-Whole Ramadan will be declared as public holidays so that every one can pray and recite the Quran.. Why work in the only month in which all ibadah and Quran recitals are worth 70 times the normal sawab (reward)?.

-Shia Muslims on temporary out of town business assignments will be able to do a temporary marriage (Muta) and enjoy home comfort outside of home.

-Since menstruation is a disease according to Quran all menstruating women will be given time off to rest in bed during their periods.

-All toilet seats in the public rest rooms will be reoriented so that one does not defecate facing Mecca .

-All public toilets will have buckets of stones instead of toilet tissues for claiming after defecation as a movement to implement sunna in the country.

-Separate bins along roadside will be placed to drop bones and dried animal feces for jins to snack on.


Zakat, charitable giving is a religious obligation. All will be taxed, but non-Muslims will be taxed more.

Medical costs will plummet, but the salaries of imams will go up as they will replace doctors at clinics:

-Spiraling medical costs can be brought down by the following two prong approaches:

-Imams can be placed in the clinics to recite Quranic ayas (verses) and blow on the patients and pray for them. Their fee will be a fraction of what doctor's charge.

- All pharmacies will be required to dispense black cumin, honey, Indian incense and camel urine as cure for all diseases as recommended by the holy prophet (pbuh). The cost will be a fraction of today's medicines.

Prison costs will also come down due to the following:

-All men serving time for the crime of rape will be freed if four male witnesses had not testified in the trial. Even if four male witnesses had testified, the criminal will be freed under insanity provision , since only mentally insane will rape in front of four witnesses.

-All men serving sentences for beating wives will be freed as under new American sharia law wife beating will be allowed.

-All thieves will be freed after cutting their hands and feet.

-All pedophiles will be freed as sex with children will not be against law any more.

-All slayers of unbelievers will be freed if they converted to Islam.


And we’ll all live happily ever after under Islam.

Monday, December 20, 2004

Should International Law Take Precedence Over U.S. Sovereignty?

Should International Law Take Precedence Over U.S. Sovereignty?

It appears that forces of international law are moving on the U.S. as they recently did in Britain.

Like it or not, we are entering an age when international law and international court rulings will have a growing effect on domestic law, alarming those who see a threat to national sovereignty. First Britain, and now the United States. Across the water, the United Kingdom suffered a major setback in the war against terror Thursday when the nation's highest court in the House of Lords ruled 8-1 that the darling of the Blair government -- the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 -- violated the larger European human-rights laws.

The antiterrorism law was enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States, which the Law Lords called "atrocities on an unprecedented scale." British authorities used the law to detain foreign terror suspects indefinitely without trial. This was much like the Bush administration's policy before Supreme Court rulings last June said foreign terror suspects had the right to have their cases reviewed by U.S. courts. The British policy violated a domestic law, the Human Rights Act of 1998, which was enacted by Parliament to implement the European Convention on Human Rights, the Law Lords said. One of the articles of the British act says, "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person."

The Law Lords said "everyone" in that context means "everyone within their jurisdiction." Since indefinite detention was applied only to foreign terror suspects and could not be applied to British nationals, it was discriminatory. Therefore, foreign nationals could be held without trial only so long as it takes to process them for deportation, the lords said. British officials, like their U.S. counterparts, do not want open trials of foreign terror suspects because much of the evidence against them consists of sensitive intelligence. Such intelligence is usually solid, but because of the way in which it is gathered it might not stand up under court scrutiny. The Blair government has said it will not release the detainees until Parliament has a chance to amend the law.


The U.S. Supreme Court is getting ready to deal with the consequences of international law, in particular with its effects on the executions of foreign nationals who have committed brutal slayings in this country.

The justices have agreed to hear argument this spring on whether an order by the International Court of Justice at The Hague -- "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" -- is binding on U.S. courts. The United States was an avid proponent of the Vienna Convention when it was formulated in 1963, mainly because it wanted to protect U.S. nationals overseas. Article 36 of the convention allows consuls in foreign countries to protect the interests of their nationals who are detained in those countries. U.S. diplomats signed the convention in April 1963 -- diplomats from 165 other nations did the same -- and President Richard Nixon sent it to the Senate, where it was finally and unanimously approved in 1969.

Moreover, the convention has been more than an idle stack of papers. The United States itself has brought 10 cases before the International Court of Justice to enforce its protections. …


There are a series of cases involving Mexican nationals that have committed serious crimes in the U.S. Suits allege that they were not advised of the right of counselor consultation that could have helped them at the time of their arrests. The pending executions have been halted for review in U.S. courts.

Consular review has been instrumental in assisting U.S. citizens that have arrested abroad.

The justices have agreed to hear argument this spring on whether an order by the International Court of Justice at The Hague -- "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" -- is binding on U.S. courts. The United States was an avid proponent of the Vienna Convention when it was formulated in 1963, mainly because it wanted to protect U.S. nationals overseas. Article 36 of the convention allows consuls in foreign countries to protect the interests of their nationals who are detained in those countries. U.S. diplomats signed the convention in April 1963 -- diplomats from 165 other nations did the same -- and President Richard Nixon sent it to the Senate, where it was finally and unanimously approved in 1969.

Moreover, the convention has been more than an idle stack of papers. The United States itself has brought 10 cases before the International Court of Justice to enforce its protections.


The result of the case in question will have a profound effect, as once the law is ratified by the Senate it will have the weight of law under the Constitution.

It's too early to predict the outcome of the case, though at least one member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has publicly said that the high court eventually must come to terms with the impact of international law. Breyer might reasonably be expected to lead those members of the Supreme Court who feel the Vienna Convention means what it says.


Is this a threat to U.S. sovereignty? We will know the outcome from the members of Congress and from the White House before the summer recess in June 2005.

Sic Liberals on Iraq

If you want to ruin a country or a portion of its population, why don't we don't we do what was done here -- send them our liberals to show them how.

The Nuclear Option for Iraq: Sic Liberals on Iraq
by Mac Johnson
Posted Dec 20, 2004

It's time to consider the nuclear option in Iraq. Not the big nasty bomb, of course, but a hellish strike nonetheless -- one capable of destroying an entire nation. It's time we dropped liberalism on our enemies!

In our war against Islamic Fundamentalism, what we are really trying to do is destroy a traditional culture rooted in religion, while simultaneously reshaping it to better suit post-modern Western society. And, Heck, we know how to do that; we just finished doing that here in America.
Now that I think about it, I can't believe the Iraq war has lasted more than 6 weeks, since we are on very familiar ground here.

Mind you, I do not mean to imply that all moralities, traditions, and religions are equivalent -- but then I don't have to, since liberals have already decided that for me. However, if what we want to do is socially engineer a less judgmental, more self-oriented and secular culture, then I think we have to admit that we went with the wrong team in Bush and the neoconservatives. This is lefty territory, pure and simple. So let History -- or "Herstory" -- be our guide here and enact the following proposals immediately:

1) Put the NEA in charge of Iraq's school system -- forthwith. I believe the children are the future, and I see no reason why foreign futures should be any brighter than ours. Retrained according to the Public School model, Iraqi youths will know how to make a Navajo dreamcatcher this "Holiday Season" but will have no idea how to properly wire up a roadside bomb. Saddam Who-sein, you say? You can't live in the past if no one teaches it. February is Zoroastrian History Month!

2) Create an Iraqi Civil Liberties Union by this next Ramadan… uh, I mean "Autumn Festival". Let the ICLU do for Iraq what the ACLU has done for America! I'm sure the first time an ICLU lawyer strolls into Baghdad District Court to have "Allah" removed from, well, everything, get Kurds bussed into Arab schools, or have Saddam Hussein released on a technicality, he will be welcomed as the tireless public advocate he truly is. But to insure this…

3) Parachute the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into Fallujah -- and throw in four of our Supreme Court Justices as back-up. The whole world seems to fall under their jurisdiction anyway, so why not make it official. We could fly them to an airport, but if we parachute 'em in, we'll finally know what they wear under those robes.

4) Give away free satellite TV for the whole Middle East. Why should the true meaning of life -- consumption, intoxication, sex, and self-pity -- be broadcast only to the West? Forget Napalm, these people need their MTV.

5) Drop Michael Moore on Iraq. OK, this one is really for me. Although… the time taken to purify a Holy Warrior after exposure to that much pork fat is probably lengthy enough to halt the insurgency for at least a week.

6) Porn, porn, porn. Why take a chance on 72 virgins in paradise when you have 72 channels of smut right here? When inspiring people to forget tradition and common cause, it never hurts to corrupt the basic relationship between man and woman while revving up the libido. Iraq needs a "Me" generation. Larry Flynt, get out your Red, White, and Blue Diaper -- your country needs you.

7) Start "The Liberal Corps" to gather up a bunch of do-gooder volunteers to help Iraq down the path to modernity. Recruiting poster: "Islamic Fundamentalism -- It's everything you like to pretend Christianity might become." Remember: either we send liberals there or else they try to "help" us here.

8) Al-Roe vs. El-Wade. Stop suicide bombers in the womb.

9) Drop Michael Moore on Iraq…Oh wait, got that one already.

Well, you get the idea. All this may not turn Iraq into Berkley overnight, but it should at least get them close to Madison. One should always use the right tool for the job, and leftists can be fine tools indeed. And if this doesn't work, we can always go back to bombing stuff.

See, foreign policy ain't so hard.

Hmmmm. Aren't these the reasons that the Islamist give for resisting American culture in the first place?

Symbiosis Between China and America Contributes to the War on Terror

Economically the United States and China have developed symbiotic relationship:

Santa Claus, were Christianity to disappear, would live on in China as a minor prosperity god. The Chinese love to shop and have naturalized the American symbol of Yuletide acquisitiveness. America's contribution to Chinese prosperity goes beyond symbols, though. The United States gave China precisely what it lacked, namely an open market for goods, access to financial markets, and a store of value for savings, among other things. Providing a global reserve currency has been America's decisive contribution to Chinese success. The result will be a Sino-US duopoly rather than a unipolar world.


The 19th century Polish militarist theorist, Clausewitz, is the author of the theory of creative destruction.

The Sino-US power duopoly constitutes the most disruptive force in world economic life since cheap British textiles crushed India's weaving industry at the outset of the 19th century. An impossibly high threshold confronts any other part of the world seeking economic success. Not in their wildest imaginings could American planners have invented a more effective way of projecting US power and suppressing prospective challengers.


Is China a force to be feared as some American neo-conservatives alleged? According to Spengler of the AsiaTimesonline, they are not.

Nonsense. It is China's success that is inconceivable without US world dominance. If US financial markets were to break up, China would go into a tailspin.


Spengler alleges that the Chinese political system “cannot be mistaken for Anglo-Saxon democracy,” their economic success does depend upon US financial markets, which cannot exist without Anglo-Saxon laws. And on top of that, the Chinese, the world’s most “cautious core savers” that salt away half their earnings, keep their savings safe in America!

China's half-trillion dollars of foreign-exchange reserves, according to the same critics, display China's strength and the United States' weakness. On the contrary: the reserves are there because the government of China knows that the Chinese trust US banks rather than Chinese ones, and wisely keep a hoard of rainy-day savings in US funds. China cannot invest its savings at home until such time as Chinese laws, regulations, and politics give rise to a banking system as strong as America's, that is, until China's legal system looks a lot more Anglo-Saxon.


Why do the Chinese do this and what are the consequences for America?

War and revolution have destroyed the savings of generation after generation and the Chinese are willing to take the risk in order to know that their children will never face poverty.

Americans, on the other hand,

…are willing to take the risk of letting foreigners break the rice-bowl of its own citizens. Chinese imports have wiped out entire industries in the United States, notably electronics, toys and textiles. The US has imposed upon its own citizens the risk of finding alternative employment. It allows foreign students to compete for places in its top universities on equal terms with natives, and protects foreign businessmen under the same laws.


America and China have much in common: agreement about North Korea and a common interest in suppressing radical Islam. Interestingly enough, China backed the re-election of George W. Bush.

With Bush's re-election, China is assured of continuity in US policies, especially those concerning Taiwan ... China, therefore, has reason to welcome this second Bush term ... Islamist terrorists are active in the southern Philippines and Indonesia ... Only when al-Qaeda and its Arab affiliates are seen to fail will their disciples in Asia lose heart.


No one could have envisioned such cooperation when Nixon and Kissenger went to China in 1971.

America’s cooperation with China has unintended consequences.

The birth of the economic superpower, China, has shut the door to prospective challengers: the more populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran. Only Turkey has had the export growth within an order of magnitude of China’s. (see graph)


A similar situation occurred in the 17th century during the Industrial Revolution that depressed the weavers of Bengal in favor of British cotton-cloth manufacturing. “Indian farmers resorted to growing opium for sale to China, to the detriment of both countries but the enrichment of the British East India Company.”

Now it’s China’s turn to disrupt the world. Spanish workers burned warehouses full of Chinese shoes, a something parallel to the burning of the East India Company opium in 1838.

Europe needs to worry about its shrinking labor force. Chinese manufacturing will shut out countries with young and growing populations that need light manufacturing to absorb migrants from the countryside. India should be worried. The Middle East and North Africa have “missed the boat.”

Does the E.U. NEED to Hate America?

Does the E.U. need to hate America? According to T.R. Reid, in The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy,” it appears that the answer is “yes”.

Although insightful, his is that “the planet has a second superpower now”, is unconvincing.

… Reid fails to convince. Nevertheless, his book offers a valuable portrait of a continental political class obsessed with “counterweighting” the United States of America. Indeed, the book prompts the question of whether the EU actually needs a degree of anti-Americanism to generate a shared identity for a fractious pastiche of nations tied together by nothing more than soccer and the technocratic tendrils of the Brussels bureaucracy.


His argument is based on economics: the “miraculous’ euro, the global power of European regulators, and increasing investment in the U.S.

But,and isn’t there always “a but”? Although “the euro has succeeded, double-digit unemployment, a declining birthrate, soaring taxes, and a union-dominated welfare state suggest a grimmer economic future,” because of “a growth rate roughly half the world average” that “fail to meet its goal of outperforming the U.S. economy by 2010.”

And what is the effect of European regulators?

…Europe’s regulators legislate the length of leeks and the curves of cucumbers, mandate minimum tax rates, and prop up a pathetically inefficient agricultural sector… Rather than making a superpower, the EU’s ham-fisted regulators keep the world’s largest unified market from reaching its full potential… Regulatory power goes “hand in hand with Europe’s centralized, semi-planned economy in which parts for airplaines are made all over Europe, flown in a special transport to another place where they are assembled.


Europe’s “soft power” comes from owning many familiar “American” product lines: Mowtown records, owned by the French, Amoco by the British, and Vaseline by the Dutch. Somehow this “soft power” is supposed to undermine U.S. power, but the truth is Europe invests in America “because America offers a far friendlier business climate than the chokingly regulated EU.”

Why do they bother? Reid makes one point well:

EU officials are as obsessed with “counterweighting” the Americans as they are proud of their genuine economic achievements. He quotes EU Commission president Romano Prodi’s exultation that “the historical significance of the euro is to construct a bipolar economy in the world.” In other words, at the hour of Europe’s greatest success, its top official celebrated not only the new currency, but also a new way to stick it to the Americans. The euro, Reid argues, “is just one facet of the broader effort to create a “bipolar” world in every respect — to see the European Union as a global superpower of American dimensions.”


Not only do they “stick it to Americans” by counterweighing, they block, as in blocking the U.S. purchase of German-made diesel submarines for Taiwan, lifting a post-Tiananmen arms embargo on China. They have also launched a joint project with the Chinese military to develop an alternative to the U.S.-run GPS system, and pursued a schizoid policy on terror by sending forces to Afghanistan and clamping down on its own restive Muslim population while bankrolling the Palestinian Authority and undermining American efforts in Iraq.

It appears that the Europeans are certainly not working with America in the War on Terror!

The EU remains “far from united.” There is no religion or feeling of nationality. The only uniting force is that which denigrates America:

“The sheer pleasure that Europeans take in denigrating America has become another bond unifying the continent,” he writes. Might anti-Americanism be useful for European integration?

Anti-Americanism is the natural choice, the unifying principle “to hold the enterprise together.” In anti-Americanism there is something for everyone to hate: McDonald’s, the “barbaric” death penalty, or le cowboy Bush. The elites of Europe “have conjured up a hydropower for the adolescent Union to define itself against.”


Although exaggerated, Reid’s warning of the EU’s “urge to counterweight” the United States is an important one. Europeans have “set out to unify in opposition to the only country that has the world leadership it demands, and with the possible addition of the seasoned and battle-hardened army that will come with Turkey’s admittance into the EU, they might be more than Reid’s anti-power to America’s super-power.

A Must-See Terrorism Video!

A new friend, an American woman apostate from Islam, sent us a link to a site that has a powerful video about terrorism. Let her speak:


Hello, this is XXXXX again. Once you get into this website scroll down and click on the, "Seeds of Hatred," video. You will not believe it. We must pray for people who are thinking this way. We must pray for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, because we are all God's children. We all came from Adam. Take care,



http://atci.showsit.info/


One tidbit that stuck with me concerned a Palestinian psychologist who studied Palestinian children. He found that 50% between ages 6 and 10 dream of becoming suicide bombers. At the rate Palestinian children are being indoctrinated and trained, the world will face a formidable mass of skilled terrorists in ten years.

See the video. Pass it on

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Wind/Hydrogen Energy Age Is on the Way

Osama bin Laden has urged his followers to blow up the oil fields of the Middle East. This will hurt, of course, but technology to be used with other energy sources is developed and being perfected.

The wind-energy capacity for the United States has been underestimated as Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas have “enough harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity needs. Using wind energy, “we have the option of electrolyzing water to produce hydrogen, which provides a way of storing and efficiently transporting wind energy.”

…Hydrogen is the fuel of choice for the fuel cell engines that automakers worldwide are working on and, if push comes to shove on the climate front, cars with gasoline-burning internal combustion engines can be converted to hydrogen.

Once in storage, hydrogen can be used to fuel power plants, much as natural gas is used. This hydrogen can be either a backup for wind power
or an alternative to natural gas, especially if rising prices make gas prohibitively costly for electricity generation.

The principal cost for wind-generated electricity is the capital outlay for initial construction. Since wind is a free fuel, the only ongoing cost is for maintenance. Given the recent volatility of natural gas prices, the stability of wind power prices is particularly appealing. With the possibility of even higher costs of natural gas in the future, natural gas-fired plants may be used increasingly as a backup for wind-generated
electricity.

The United States is lagging in developing wind energy not because it cannot compete technologically with Europe in manufacturing wind turbines but because of a lack of leadership in Washington. The wind production tax credit of 1.5¢ per kilowatt-hour, which was adopted in 1992 to establish parity with subsidies to fossil fuel, has been permitted to lapse three times in the last five years, most recently at the end of 2003 when Congress failed to pass a new energy bill. The uncertainty about when it will be renewed has disrupted planning throughout the wind power industry.


If leadership in Washington is what’s necessary to get this project off the ground, prod your Congressmen, or better still, their staff, to get the ball rolling.

The Circus Is Coming to Town

Hattip: Little Green Footballs

The Saddam Hussein Circus is coming to town as the former dictator is preparing a legal challenge in U.S. courts

Citing a fifty leaked brief prepared by his defense team, Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer has advised Saddam to take his case to U.S. courts “to ensure he receives a fair trial” and “basic legal rights given to those tried in the United States, such as full access to his defense team and an independent judge and jury…”

The leaked brief is entitled “The Iraqi Special Tribunal as Victors’ Justice – the Inherent Illegality and Bias of the Whole Process.”

The brief argues that U.S. law should prevail in the case because the trial is effectively being taken at the behest of the U.S. government and that Saddam will have trouble receiving a fair trial because leading members of the Iraqi and U.S. administration have publicly called for him to be found guilty and killed to “validate” the war.


Note: Clive Stafford Smith is a beneficiary of the George Soros Foundation.

George Soros, a prominent backer of John Kerry in the 2004 election, has worked tirelessly, spending millions of dollars on the Democratic Party and to oust George W. Bush from office. Thus, the involvement of Clive Stafford Smith reveals the not-so-secret hand of Soros in a continued effort to discredit George W. Bush, a sitting president in the middle of a war.

Soros is a well-known power broker that has been implicated in the destabilization of small countries through the manipulation of their currencies. One wonders what would have happened to the United States if Soros had become the power behind the throne: what would have been done to the United States or in the name of the United States under his influence. We hope he will never have the chance.

“Interview us or we will kill you”

The mounting evidence of the Islamists’ manner of shaping how the world views them and Islam is echoed in the chilling words, “Interview us or we will kill you”. Soon after issuing this warning, a commander thought again and issued another warning, “Broadcast that and we will kill you,” they told the 30-year-old television journalist Mohammed Abdul Razzaq.

The operative word here is kill: say this or we will kill you, don’t say that or we will kill you. Freedom of speech has always been suppressed under Islam. The death of Theo Van Gogh is another example of how modern Islam continues in the centuries-old vein of mind control through intimidation.

Morality police, thought police are rampant throughout the Muslim world, keeping the population under their thumb to toe the Islamic line. Now the thought police in the form of jihadis are roaming free throughout the world, threatening and killing Muslims, Apostates, and non-Muslims that dare to offer a criticism or an opinion that is contrary to Islam, or, in this case, to truthfully depict what is going on, the willful attempt to prevent the upcoming elections in Iraq.

The pattern is abundantly clear: wherever Muslims become dominant, freedom of action, speech, and even thought is eliminated through intimidation and violence.

Hattip: JihadWatch

Understanding Terror Networks

Here’s a very thought-provoking report from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, deconstructing the received wisdom that Islamic terrorists are impoverished and desperate. Hattip: Little Green Footballs

We all know that Al Qaeda is a violent, Islamist, revivalist social movement, held together by a common vision of a Salafi state. Al Qaeda proper is just a small organization within this larger social movement. We often mistake the social movement for Al Qaeda and vice versa because for about five years, Al Qaeda had more or less control of the social movement.

The segment that poses a threat to the United States came out of Egypt. Most of the leadership and the whole ideology of Al Qaeda derives from Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb (1906–66) and his progeny, who killed Anwar Sadat and were arrested in October 1981. President Mubarak generously allowed them to be released in 1984.

Many of the released men, harassed by the Egyptian police, migrated to Afghanistan. With the end of the Soviet-Afghan War, they continued on to jihad. These Arab outsiders actually did not fight in the Soviet-Afghan War except for one small battle at Jaji/Ali Kheyl, which was really defensive: the Arabs had put their camp on the main logistic supply line, and in the spring of 1987 the Soviets tried to destroy it. So they were really more the recipient of a Soviet offensive, but they really did not fight in that war and thus the U.S. had absolutely no contact with them. I heard about the battle of Jaji at the time, and it never dawned on me to ask the Afghans I debriefed who the Arabs were. They turned out to be bin Laden and his men at the Al-Masada (Lion’s Den) camp.

After the war, a lot of these foreigners returned to their countries. Those who could not return because they were terrorists remained in Afghanistan. In 1991, Algeria and Egypt complained to Pakistan that it was harboring terrorists, so Pakistan expelled them. Thus the most militant of these terrorists made their way to Khartoum, where they were invited by Hassan al-Turabi of the National Islamic Front in Khartoum.

The Khartoum period is critical, because what these violent Salafists basically want to do is to create a Salafi state in a core Arab country. Salafi (from Salaf, “ancient ones” or “predecessors” in Arabic) is an emulation, an imitation of the mythical Muslim community that existed at the time of Mohammed and his companion, which Salafists believe was the only fair and just society that ever existed. A very small subset of Salafis, the disciples of Qutb, believe they cannot create this state peacefully through the ballot-box but have to use violence. The utopia they strive for is similar to most utopias in European thought of the nineteenth to the twentieth centuries, such as the communist classless society.

In Khartoum, the Salafists theorized that the reason they had been unable to overthrow their own government (the “near enemy”) was because it was propped up by the “far enemy”— the United States. So they decided to redirect their efforts and, instead of going after their own government, to attack the “far-enemy.” In 1996, for many reasons, Hassan al- Bashir, the President of Sudan, had to expel Al Qaeda after the imposition of international sanctions, because the Sudanese Government was implicated in the attempt to assassinate Egyptian President Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1995. In August 1996, within two months of returning to Afghanistan, bin Laden issued a fatwa declaring war on the United States.

The fatwa clearly articulated the new goals of this movement, which were to get the U.S. out of the Middle East so they would be free to overthrow the Saudi monarchy or the Egyptian regime and establish a Salafi state. This remains their goal and is why 9-11 happened. This is why the embassy bombing happened. It’s really not so much to destroy the United States, something they know they cannot do right now. This is all why I put the start of the threat against us at 1996.

The 400 terrorists on whom I’ve collected data were the ones who actually targeted the “far enemy,” the U.S., as opposed to their own governments. I wanted to limit myself for analytical purity to that group, to see if I could identify anything different from other terrorist movements, which were far more nationalistic.

Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing - the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they’re just plain evil.

Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.

Al Qaeda’s members are not the Palestinian fourteen-year- olds we see on the news, but join the jihad at the average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi- professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion. The natural sciences predominate. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, Zawahiri is a physician, Mohammed Atta was, of course, an architect; and a few members are military, such as Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, who is supposedly the head of the military committee.

Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children. Those who were not married were usually too young to be married. Only 13 percent were madrassa-trained and most of them come from what I call the Southeast Asian sample, the Jemaah Islamiyya (JI). They had gone to schools headed by Sungkar and Bashir. Sungkar was the head of JI; he died in 1999. His successor, Bashir, is the cleric who is being tried for the Jakarta Marriott bombing of August 2003; he is also suspected of planning the October 2002 Bali bombing.

As a psychiatrist, originally I was looking for any characteristic common to these
men. But only four of the 400 men had any hint of a disorder. This is below the worldwide base rate for thought disorders. So they are as healthy as the general population. I didn’t find many personality disorders, which makes sense in that people who are antisocial usually don’t cooperate well enough with others to join groups. This is a well-organized type of terrorism: these men are not like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, loners off planning in the woods. Loners are weeded out early on. Of the nineteen 9-11 terrorists, none had a criminal record. You could almost say that those least likely to cause harm individually are most likely to do so collectively.


Read the rest of this chilling and thought-provoking analysis.

Why do fringe liberals, Muslim terrorists, European socialists, and communists all hate Christianity?

Why do fringe liberals, Muslim terrorists, European socialists, and communists all hate Christianity?

Dr. Donald May. a retina surgeon and university lecturer, gives us reasons that reflect his strong Christian faith.

The Christmas Deconstruction Alliance just does not get it. They are dumbfounded as they have not been able to secularize Christmas. They throw tantrums because of the tenacity with which the vast majority of us hold onto our Christian beliefs and traditions. They do not understand why the United States does not roll over, accept the abolition of Christmas, close down our churches, and remove the crosses from our cemeteries.

The liberal elite think their superior wisdom, and their control of education and the media, should convince us to become a bunch of pagans. They fantasize we will give up our guns, values, morals, and Constitution. They romanticize we will embrace socialized medicine, tolerate failing schools, and become mindless socialist whimps eager to be euthanized before becoming a burden on society.

… They desire to control others, and they despise the fact Christianity promotes freedom based on personal responsibility. One can’t have Christianity directing people’s lives. The autocrats will direct our lives.

The argument of hurting someone’s feelings or making them feel uncomfortable by celebrating Christmas is one of the most powerful liberal weapons used against Christmas. They put the feelings of the few above the many, and that is not democracy. Their actions are hypocritical, as liberals demand our tolerance all of their abominable behavior.

The politically correct insist we should value everyone’s culture. As Christianity is the majority culture in our country, should it not also be valued? Are we observing an overdose of progressive hypocrisy? Just how long are we going to endure the liberal intolerance of our values?

Nowhere does a “wall of separation of church and state” appear in our Constitution. Most people simply do not know this as they have heard assertions of its existence for so long. We can only hope and pray that in the near future our Supreme Court will enforce our Constitution and cease to reinterpret it as a judicial legislative tool.

In typical liberal fashion, the Christmas Deconstruction Alliance attacks the most vulnerable of our society, our small towns and villages, and our schools. Community and school officials are often terrified or simply unaware of the laws. They cannot afford the time and money to fight the legal challenges. There are also those among them who support the leftist attack on Christianity.

Just what are some of the things opposed by those who would eliminate our Judeo-Christian heritage? For one, we can’t have honesty. If the left’s ideas were honestly stated, the left would become an endangered species.

We can’t have self-reliance, as people are too stupid to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their own actions, especially conservatives.

We can’t have hard work and financial success. Israel and the United States have strong economies that must be damaged or at least economically disabled by the Kyoto Treaty.

We can’t have joy since the liberals and terrorists always are angry about something.

We certainly can’t have giving and charity; that is the job of government. Only government bureaucrats are smart enough to dispense our money.
What business does the Salvation Army have of collecting money and giving it to the poor? That won’t get any votes.

We can’t have patriotism either. We might offend our enemies. We also shouldn’t defend ourselves as we might insult some thugs and dictators.

We certainly can’t have cohesive families. Families take care of each other and greatly reduce the need for the government to step in and pretend to take care of people.

We definitely can’t acknowledge we are a God-fearing nation who’s Constitution is based on The Ten Commandments. Why that’s in direct opposition to moral and legal relativism (depravity).

If The Ten Commandments, moral values, prayer, and Christmas are removed from our public schools, we are in grave danger. Public schools would increasingly pretend to educate students while indoctrinating them with more leftist propaganda.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses and other places where unsuspecting citizens might be exposed to them. Recently, a California school tried to ban The Declaration of Independence from a classroom as The Declaration contained references to God. We certainly can’t have impressionable students exposed to the fact that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” All socialists know that our rights come from governments.

If we allow Christmas to be taken from our public life and our educational system, if we allow our Constitution to be turned against us, if we fail to be a light of liberty unto the World, we will also deny freedom to a desperate World that will slip further into darkness. Just like the War on Terror, the battle for Christmas will be long and difficult.

A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!


Read the original.

Do Elected Officials Make Legislative Decisions in Congress? Think Again!

Why do term limits irk politicians so much? I must admit that I don’t stay up a night thinking about how long politicians stay in office. Logic tells us that the public would be better served the longer a person practices his craft. Should politicians make a career in one position? Wade Hopping, a former Florida Supreme Court justice and sometimes lobbyist, as recounted by Paul Jacob, doesn’t think so.

…[It’s] "The legislative staff," he says.

I hear this a lot from "experts" in the capitols of the states with term limits for their representatives. The problem, it is said, is that with less experience, legislators rely more heavily on staffs.

That sounds bad, doesn't it?

In Arizona, two recent studies each explored the terra incognita of the state's term limited legislature. They came to some dramatically different conclusions, most of which were downplayed in the media. The study by a group called ThinkAZ was so not "The Sky Is Falling" that most coverage consisted of quotes from hysterical politicians arguing against term limits, and not about the study itself; it just wasn't "good enough" copy. The other study had a more consistently negative spin to it, so it got more play:
[W]hile power may have been lost by legislative leaders, it seems to have been ceded to others. Unelected others.
The Morrison study found that the lack of institutional understanding of the legislative process has increased the influence of those people who know where the skeletons are buried: Capitol lobbyists, for example. And permanent staff, especially the partisan staff aligned with legislative leaders. Anecdotally, we have observed partisan staff — people who historically remained on the sidelines — assuming major roles in promoting legislation.

Now, the idea that lobbyists have gained power with term limits is laughable. Oh, you can probably find lobbyists who will advance the claim, when they argue against term limits, but such talk is a ruse. All in all, the shorter the terms served, the more time lobbyists have to spend re-investing in new representatives.

Politicians are hard to buy, actually. It's often said that you can only rent them. But with term limits, lobbyists are limited to the length of the rental agreements. That's why lobbyists are so consistently against term limits.

The idea that their staffs might gain power over legislators, however, sounds more plausible. And yet . . . something seems wrong.

If one is going to rest one's case on "anecdotal" evidence, then I suspect the anti-term limits folk are choosing the wrong anecdotes.

The most striking anecdote showing legislators being "played" by their staffs made national headlines a few weeks ago. You remember the story. Another humungous omnibus bill was pushed through Congress, pushed so quickly after committee that no representative had time to read it. Considering its size, over 3,000 pages, it's a wonder anyone could.


But, after passage, and after the forklifts had delivered the bill to flummoxed reps, then the reading process began. And inside was found the most peculiar provision. It allowed staffers on the House and Senate appropriations committees to examine the tax returns of individual U.S. citizens.

Suddenly, the Hill was abuzz. How did it get there? At first, fingers pointed to Rep. Ernest J. Istook, Jr. of Oklahoma. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist took to calling it "the Istook Amendment." But Istook would have nothing to do with it: "I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted." Quickly, the creepy little provision was removed.

The culprit turned out to be one Richard Efford, a 19-year veteran staffer on the House Appropriations Committee. He had been frustrated in doing his job, inspecting IRS facilities unannounced. The IRS objected to his presence, claiming he might accidentally see a return on somebody's computer screen. So, as a bit of housekeeping, he and his comrades put the provision in. He was surprised that anyone would mind. He couldn't see why such a little thing had to be vetted by his bosses.

It was just a little thing.

Well, the Omnibus Bill itself is made up of a million "little things." These things come from everywhere, including staffers. And who knows how many more little provisions went into the bill without any real consideration by an elected representative? We know that no representative outside of committee read much of the monster before voting it in, and no one representative read it all.

… The legislative staffs at the federal level as well as in the states have far more power than it is polite to talk about. Usually, politicians fear bringing the subject up. They don't want us to realize how much they rely upon their professional staffs to keep cranking out their never-ending batches of half-baked legislation.


They only bring it up when they have to: when a goofy provision just seems too goofy even for Congress. Or when their careers are threatened with term limits.

When congressmen confront term limits, their knee-jerk reaction has often been to protest that the staff will run the place. But the open secret shows how hollow a threat that is: with career politicians, the staff is already running the show.


This is scary. I didn’t elect these people to represent me. Why are they making these decisions? In truth, ALL institutions are actually run by staff as bosses come and go, but should the business of the American people be decided on by the un-elected, the bureaucrats, congressional interns, and staff members that remain in their positions for years?

The unimaginable idea that un-elected staff members can slip pet provisions into legislation is an outrage that needs to be immediately corrected.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

The Cat Is Out of the Bag: Now We Know the Reason Why the E.U. Wants Turkey

The Cat Is Out of the Bag: Now We Know the Reason Why the E.U. Wants Turkey
Brussels leaders name a date for final talks on admitting the European Union's first Muslim member.

Advocates of the European Union as a fully fledged superpower have predicted that the addition of Turkey's military would make it a true global player.


The Europeans are anxious to foil what they see as the hegemony of the United States that arose after World War II

Ankara's forces are greater than those of France and Britain combined, with 514,000 men under arms and 380,000 in reserve, plus a robust air force with American fighters.

A NATO official described the forces as "very experienced and well-trained", after years of battles against Kurdish guerillas.


What European npn-Muslim leaders don’t realize is that they will be swept aside in favor of mullahs and sheikhs.

When confronted with the possibility of losing the French throne that was only offered to Catholics, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot, remarked as he converted to Catholicism: “Paris is worth a mass.” One wonders how many of Europe’s elite will conveniently convert (revert) to Islam to hold onto their status and wealth. Cruelly and cynically they are selling out the populations whom they are supposed to protect for the purpose of blocking the United States, a country that, in two World Wars, saved them from tyranny and subjegation. There is no gratitude from salvaged; only spite and resentment.

As for the adding Turkey to the E.U. to thwart the Americans, the E.U. should heed the old maxim: “Cutting off your nose to spite your face,” as bringing in Turkey out of spite is a suicidal act for Europeans.

The Turkish army in command of French nuclear weapons is a sobering thought. It appears that Europeans are so spiteful that they don't care what they unleash on the world as long as it thwarts American power.

Hat tip: JihadWatch

Sensible Comments:

‘"Turkey's military, should it wished, could conceivably march on Europe", he said "Yes but we have France and they are nuclear." My reply was that France will be a Muslim majority country within a generation.

Of course this could only work when the ingredients are right. Turkey in the EU, France and the Netherlands dhimmified/Islamified and America "anti-Zionist" and less than 50 percent of its founding population. Then we could see the vision of Islam in all of its dreadful reality unleashed upon the world.

Now it all makes sense. Assuming the EU idiots are using this logic, do they expect Turkey to be an ally, not a threat? Didn't Qadaffi of Libya specify what their true intentions are in a moment of refreshing honesty, when he said the entire Islamic world views this as a Trojan horse to [interject Islam into ]?

Isn't this what the Roman's did before their civilization went belly-up? Didn't they farm out their dirty work to others (in this case protection in the form of the fox guarding the hen house) who took an "oath of loyalty" to Rome to protect it in exchange for such perks as accelerated citizenship, and participating in Roman economic prosperity?’

“If I was a young islamist I would join the Turkish army now, so that in the 40-50 years it might take me to rise to become a top Turkish General, I could make a grab for Brussels. Such a coup may seem unthinkable now but in 40-50 years time it may not be so hard to achieve in a vastly more islamified and fractured Europe. There are certainly Islamists thinking about this possibility as they boast about such takeovers regularly.

D.C. Watson: A Call To The Worldwide Infidel Alliance

A call to anti-dhimmitude by longtime Jihad Watch reader DC Watson:
Oh, you didn’t know? No one’s told you? The threat…to our culture, no one’s said anything to you? What threat? Let me ask you: when you look into your future, what do you see? Please accompany me through this column. I and millions of our American brothers & sisters have something very important to tell you. You just have to promise not to keep it a secret. Do you remember the morning of September 11th, 2001? We all kissed our loved ones goodbye that morning. We came home that night, but because of Muslims living among us, who in their minds, were commanded by their God to commit murder against us, 3,000 people didn’t. Since that rotten day, with terror-related arrests, convictions, and deportations of Muslims residing in America, and with everything else we have learned, our government still insists on telling us that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Are we supposed to believe that all Muslims in America differ from the Muslims wreaking havoc all over the world? I know a few ex-Muslims who are eager to share their knowledge with everyone: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/main.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Perhaps you don’t feel that Muslims pose a threat. After all, they’re polite, they smile at you, and they’re soft-spoken, right?

Qur’an: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians as friends, for they are friends with one another." (Surah 5:51)

Were you aware that some Muslims residing inside our borders consistently insist that accommodations be made for them even if their demands disrupt American communities, or American businesses’ production schedules?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11174

Did you know that several Muslim “Charities” operating inside the U.S. have been shut down by our government for funneling money to terrorist networks?
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt081403.htm

When their demands are refused, they accuse us of “religious intolerance.” And even though they’ve broken a city ordinance, or other policies, our “leaders” give in.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255513/posts

Not all Muslims are bad people. Then again, we discover issues like this:

We’re told that a prominent American Muslim was quoted as saying: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Through education? They’ve been speaking in our schools all over the country, talking to our kids. Is this just a coincidence?

2002: Excelsior Elementary School in Byron, California required seventh-grade students to pretend they're Muslims, wear Islamic clothing, memorize verses from the Qur’an, pray to Allah and even to play "jihad games" in California public schools.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118

Recently, at Irmo High School, Columbia, SC, a public school teacher, who is Muslim:

• Required the students to create a pamphlet, which would teach people about Islam.

• Told students that the United States is a 'Judeo-Christian-Muslim' nation…according to the beliefs of the founding fathers.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_040_04

Infidels, is this what you want? Is this what you pay taxes for?

Earlier, I asked you what you see when you look into your future.
Imagine a few of the possibilities in an Islamic State:

• Being forced to renounce your current faith and convert to Islam, or being tortured for refusing.

http://www.acpp.org/uappeals/2004/040518s1.html

• Public flogging if you’re caught drinking alcohol.

http://www.holycrime.com/CrimeFlog9.asp

• Even if you haven’t stolen anything, “religious police” may beat a confession out of you. If they’re successful, say goodbye to your right hand: it’s about to be lopped off with a sword.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000003.php

• Rape victims being hanged in public for criticizing an Islamic Judge.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002936.php

Even our “Saudi friends” demonstrate the compassionate, tolerant side of Islam:

http://www.persecution.org/Countries/saudi_arabia.html

It’s called Shari’ah law. Isn’t it a marvelous picture? Is this what American Veterans have fought for, what we’ve worked for, or what we elect people to public office for?

Our unwillingness to fall for the “peaceful religion” facade is labeled “Islamophobia.” Here are some facts you won’t see in the mainstream media with regard an “Islamophobia” seminar recently held at the United Nations:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16340

In truth, if Muslims are really honest and peaceful, there should be no need to ask for our tolerance.

Although not all Muslims are odious, some have openly expressed their desire for global conversion to Islam. Having the mindset that “it’ll never happen here” is very dangerous: if we don’t protect our culture, happen it will. Europe is already having substantial problems with Muslims demanding that Shari’ah laws be implemented there.

There’s a threat living among us. We can stop it, but it’s going to take some hard work to undo the mess that political correctness and open border policies have created. Contacting your school boards, town councils, Mayors, Judges, and State and Federal elected officials. Let them know that you know, and that they can be replaced with people who’ll look out for you — not infiltrators from foreign lands expecting you to change your culture to theirs.
We, the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States)

Our founding fathers obviously possessed more forethought than their modern day successors. Muslims wanting to replace our Constitution with Islamic law should immediately be plucked from our society and shipped off to live in a nation that is already Islamic. With the exception of the Holy Bible and New Testament, the United States Constitution is our most sacred document. We must protect it at all costs, against all assaults. Give anyone who tells you that they’re offended by America or by Christianity directions to the airport!

Always remember: This is your country; let no one take it from you. Cherish your arms, and your right to bear them.

Now it's your turn to pass it on!

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK: "We have identified the terrorist and made the arrest!"


WE ARE WINNING THE WAR OF IDEAS!!!!!!


Subject: TERRORIST APPREHENDED!

New York, UNITED-STATES - At New York's Kennedy airport today, an
individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he
believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He
is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in
every country.

As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'there are 3 sides
to every triangle'."

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God
had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would
have given us more fingers and toes.


{Thanks to KCC}

Friday, December 17, 2004

The U.S. Is Being Invaded by the Mexican Army???

Strange things happen everyday on the border.

On any given day, the Mexican-U.S. border looks like Baghdad.

For example, in 2000, a Juarez cartel of Mexico’s drug gangs placed a bounty of $200,000 on the heads of each U.S. lawman.

In March 2002, four heavily armed Mexican army soldiers showed up on American soil, close to San Diego. They were armed with three submachine guns and an M-16 rifle. They illegally entered the country near Tecate, Mexico.

There have been other witnessed and documented “armed incursions” into U.S. territory by heavily armed Mexican army units. In March 2000, two Mexican army vehicles that carried over a dozen soldiers armed with automatic assault rifles, pistols and submachine guns drove into the U.S. near Santa Teresa, NM. They shot at Border Patrol agents.

A 28-year old ranger was killed as he and Border Patrol agents were about to nab two gunmen with ties to Mexican drug thugs. This happened in Arizona’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument August 2003.

There was a high-speed car chase that ended in Bisbee, Ariz. Eyewitnesses say they have seen Mexican military and paramilitary police assisting Mexican nationals cross illegally into the U.S. In 2002, U.S. Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle was killed in a drug-related shooting. An American father and daughter were held at gunpoint inside the U.S. on their own property by a gun-toting squad of Mexican soldiers. The U.S. government released the officials – with their weapons intact, of course.

A year ago, a detail of U.S. Marines came under automatic weapons fire near the border, two miles west of Naco, Ariz. Chris Simcos, owner of the Tombstone (Ariz.) Tumbleweed newspaper pointed to the statement of FBI agent Susan Herskovits that the agency is involved in the investigation because it involves an assault on federal law-enforcement agents and involves gunfire from across the international boundary with Mexico.

Why do we hear nothing of these things? Where is Dan Rather when you need him… looking at false documents, or something?

Money transfers from Mexican immigrants working in the U.S. to relatives back home reached a record $10 billion in 2002…up from $9.2 billion in 2001. Does anyone believe those billions are used to purchase goods that help provide jobs for American workers? The transfers are Mexico’s second largest source of income (after oil exports).

Money is not the only thing being taken from American citizens. So, too, are available college seats. Minimum wage jobs are taken from our kids.

Virginia’s Attorney General issued an advisory opinion citing concerns that illegal aliens may take seats at state colleges. His memo encouraged state colleges to report illegal aliens on campus to federal authorities and forbids entry into Virginia colleges at an in-state tuition cost.

Northern Virginia Community College, the state’s largest community college, responded by declaring it would continue enrolling illegal immigrants.

Several states, including New York, California and Texas, not only allow illegal aliens to enroll in colleges funded by public taxation, but also allow them to pay in-state tuition. A bill introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) grants in-state tuition costs for illegals. It gives legal status to teenagers who have been in the United States at least five years, have graduated from high school, and who have no criminal record. What a conservative claim to fame that is!

Crime is another big, costly problem for U.S. taxpayers. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), in Los Angeles 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total about 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

We have about two million prisoners behind bars in America. An astounding 30 percent are illegal aliens and they cost taxpayers $1.6 billion, annually.

Over $120 billion in drugs illegally cross our southern border, annually.

We have all heard how Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Maybe we should take up a collection in each state for Washington legislators who seem to have nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs while America is infiltrated by illegals. We can buy violins!

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo stands almost alone in the Congress trying to deal with the many problems of illegal immigration.

Tancredo shoots holes in the theory that immigration is needed to fill the coffers of the Social Security trust fund. “Rather than functioning as a support base for the elderly, these immigrants make very little money and depress the wage rate.” Most are “low-skill, low-wage earners, and are a drain on this nation,” he says.

Research results from one CIS program states that “even after welfare reform, an estimated 34 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants, and 25 percent headed by illegal Mexican immigrants, used at least one major welfare program, in contrast to 15 percent of native households.”

In Cochise County, Ariz,, toxic human waste left by thousands of aliens monthly is causing health biohazards. According to sierratimes.com, the once pristine desert land is filled with human excrement, feminine hygiene products, and soiled underwear.

A Hereford, Ariz. homeowner, Cindy Kolb, say piles—literally piles—of human feces begin at the border fence “and can be found through all of the trails and campsites.” They camp on – and contaminate—public lands and national parks.

Johnny Petrello lives near Sierra Vista. He says when he called the Arizona governor’s office, he was told “…if I collected garbage from illegal alien spots, charges could be brought against me for removing evidence from a crime scene.”

Aside from the loss of common sense, a big part of the problem started when L.A. police chief Daryl Gates enacted Special Order 40 which prohibits police officers from arresting illegals just because they were illegals. It was adopted by big cities across the nation… even little (but very liberal) Boulder, Colo. adopted it.

In Boulder, after recovering from a long coma, Colorado University quarterback John Hessler was put in a wheelchair by two illegals driving with no headlights at night.

A half-hour drive away in Denver, illegal Javier Cruz-Caballero intentionally ran down a policeman, Robert Bryant who was using a hand-held radar gun in a school walk zone.

Did you know that over 800,000 Californians have fled their home state? Did you know that $230 million to educate the kids of illegal aliens was paid by Georgia residents last year?

It almost sounds to me like the governments of Mexico and the U.S. are working on an urge to merge. Maybe Canada will be part of the deal.

We can create a new currency… with what the Federal Reserve has done to the value of the U.S. dollar, we might come out ahead.

What is it I keep hearing the President say? “We are a nation of laws…”

Sure we are.

Osama's Big Lie

Osama bin Laden has made his goals and objectives perfectly clear to all thinking people:

1. He plans to “take back lands that were at any time in Muslim lands.”
2. He plans to replace the “apostate leaders” of Muslim countries that don’t adhere to the strictest form Islam and the rule of Sharia.
3. The United States, the “Great Disbelief” is to be destroyed and converted to a Muslim land.
4. The entire world is to be “reverted” to Islam and a mega-government based on Sharia law will prevail over all mankind.

Osama has stated this goals in various forms and at various times with an ominous caveat. He doesn’t care how many Apostates, Westerners, Americans, men, women, or children he hills to achieve his goal. In fact, he predicts that he “will have to kill four million Americans including one million children” to achieve his goal. That is his plan. I believe him.

Osama's Big Lie
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2004

On November 29, al-Qaeda’s chief ideologue, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a videotape to al-Jazeera that told the United States to make an important decision: “You must choose between two ways of dealing with Muslims -- either on the basis of respect and mutual interests, or treating them as if they were legitimate spoils, pillaged lands, and permissible sacrilege. This is your problem, and you have to make your own choice.”

Al-Zawahiri’s suggestion that the United States could deal with al-Qaeda “on the basis of respect and mutual interests” strongly implied, like bin Laden’s pre-election address encouraging Americans to “look for [9/11’s] causes in order to prevent it from happening again,” that America can buy its security through capitulation to al-Qaeda’s demands.

In a recent articleI explained that some Westerners in positions of influence – such as Britain’s former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and U.S. Naval Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla – had been pushing for negotiation with al-Qaeda even before the late October release of bin Laden’s videotape. The position of these scholars rests on a key error: the conflation of al-Qaeda’s short-term grievances (such as the U.S. military presence in the Muslim world) with its long-term goals.

Michael Scheuer made this mistake in a recent interviewon Meet the Press. Scheuer, a former CIA agent, was the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris. On Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Scheuer if he believed “that being ‘tough on Israel’ would in any way change Osama bin Laden’s agenda or desire to destroy America.” Scheuer’s telling reply: “His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply wants us out of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle East.”

In the interview, Scheuer stated that he does not believe the United States should disengage from the Middle East (“My book, if anything, is a hawkish statement . . .”). But his articulation of bin Laden’s agenda makes a pull-out sound palatable. If the genesis of all this danger -- to our troops abroad and civilians at home -- lies simply in our refusal to leave bin Laden’s “neighborhood,” doesn’t it make sense to negotiate with al-Qaeda and accommodate the terrorists’ desire for U.S. non-interference in the Middle East?

The answer is no. Al-Qaeda’s objective is not limited to U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. Rather, the network views this pull-out as a necessary prerequisite to the attainment of its ultimate goal: the establishment of an Islamist super-state ruled by the harshest version of Islamic law, primed to re-conquer formerly Muslim lands and pursue an aggressive expansionist agenda.

This broad agenda will not change if the West chooses to negotiate with terrorists and give ground on some issues. Those who favor negotiation and appeasement generally overlook the theological dimension of al-Qaeda’s thought. The group has articulated political grievances and stated some goals, to be sure. Ultimately, though, these aims are rooted in an overall theology that is unlikely to waver. Al-Qaeda leadership and affiliated theologians influencing believe in a return to a pristine form of Islam that they think existed in Muhammad’s time, stripped of all the alleged bida, or “innovations,” that have crept into the practice of their religion in the intervening 1400 years. This commitment to weeding out bida runs so deep that al-Qaeda members often brand as infidels those Muslims whose practice of the faith allegedly includes too much bida. The worldview of al-Qaeda is fixed; this is not a theology given to adaptation.

Re-Establishment of the Caliphate

Al-Qaeda has made no secret of its desire to re-establish the caliphate as a centralized political leadership over the entire Muslim world. The terrorist group’ training manual, in outlining its historical grievances against the West, begins with the fall of the caliphate: “After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves.”

The obvious way to redress the perceived harms that were inflicted by the collapse of the old caliphate (the Ottoman Empire) is to establish a new one. A Congressional Research Service Report for Congress by analyst Christopher M. Blanchard explains that bin Laden has argued that the Muslim world “should see itself as one seamless community and that Muslims were obliged to unite and defend themselves.” To that end, Blanchard writes, bin Laden “urged Muslims to find a leader to unite them and establish a ‘pious caliphate’ that would be governed by Islamic law and follow Islamic principles of finance and social conduct.” The 9/11 Commission Report concurs with Blanchard’s assessment, stating that “[f]or those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, [bin Laden] offers his ‘Caliphate’ as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty.”

Bin Laden has echoed this theme in his public writings and speeches since the September 11 attacks. In his November 2002 “Letter to America,” bin Laden emphasized al-Qaeda’s dedication to unseating the current governments in power throughout the Middle East: “The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine.”

Other key al-Qaeda leaders share bin Laden’s goal of re-establishing the caliphate. The Washington Post reported that in late 2001, a treatise written by al-Zawahiri was smuggled out of Afghanistan and eventually published in the Arabic-language newspaper Asharq al-Awsat. Al-Zawahiri’s treatise explained that the goal of al-Qaeda’s jihad was to establish a religious state throughout the Muslim world and “reinstate its fallen caliphate and regain its lost glory.”

Harsh Version of Islamic Law

A new Islamic caliphate is not necessarily objectionable in theory. In this case, however, the new caliphate envisioned by al-Qaeda’s leadership would be run by exactly the sort of theocratic zealots currently waging war to establish it. Bin Laden has trumpeted the fact that his caliphate would enforce the strictest possible version of Islamic law, a form of rule akin to the Taliban’s.

Bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of war against America rejects all kinds of law except for shariah: “[I]t is not a secret that to use man made law instead of the Shari’a and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten ‘voiders’ that would strip a person from his Islamic status (turn a Muslim into a Mushrik, non believer status).” Even in 1996, before bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, he made explicit his desire to implement a strict version of sharia law. In an interviewthat year, Robert Fisk asked bin Laden what kind of Islamic state he would like to see, and specifically “whether thieves and murderers [would] still have their heads cut off . . . in a sharia-governed state.” Fisk reported: “Bin Laden’s answer is unsatisfactory. All Muslims would love to live under true sharia, he said. A guilty man would only be happy if he was justly punished.”

Bin Laden left Sudan on May 19, 1996 and returned to Afghanistan. Soon after, the Taliban cemented its power and implemented the harshest version of sharia law that the world had seen in centuries. In the Taliban’s Afghanistan, the list of capital crimes included homosexuality, conversion out of Islam, and preaching non-Islamic faiths. Women had no rights under the Taliban’s governance, and men could be imprisoned if their beards were not long enough. Music and all forms of light entertainment were banned; the Taliban even forbade the use of paper bags lest the paper include recycled pages of the Qur’an.[ii][2] The Taliban also shocked the world by massacring the Hazaras (a Farsi-speaking Shiite group in northern Afghanistan) and blowing up two historic Buddha statues in Bamiyan Province.

Retaking Formerly Muslim Lands

Al-Qaeda’s caliphate would not be limited to the present-day Muslim world. Rather, its rule would properly encompass all those lands that had once been a part of the Islamic world.
In the view of classical Muslim jurists, the world is divisible into the dar al-Islam (the “house of Islam”) and the dar al-Harb (the “house of war”). The dar al-Islam refers to those geographical locations where the sharia is enforced. Although al-Qaeda’s leadership believes that the sharia is not adequately enforced in any contemporary Muslim state -- not even uber-conservative Saudi Arabia – those states are included in dar al-Islam. In al-Qaeda’s worldview, any land that was once part of dar al-Islam remains so forever.

Thus, al-Qaeda’s vision necessitates the takeover of governments throughout the Muslim world. All lands that were once part of dar al-Islam remain legitimate targets of jihad. In a March 1997 interview with Peter Arnett, bin Laden was asked about veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviets who had gone on to fight in scattered regions of the globe. Bin Laden explained, “Their going to Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan and other countries is but a fulfillment of a duty, because we believe that these states are part of the Islamic World.”
Abdullah Azzam – who had taught bin Laden at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia and continued to serve as his theological mentor when they were both in Pakistan in the 1980s – has an impressive wish list of formerly Muslim lands to be re-conquered: “This duty will not end with victory in Afghanistan,” Azzam stated. “Jihad will remain an individual obligation until all other lands that were Muslim are returned to us so that Islam will reign again: before us lie Palestine, Bokhara, Lebanon, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, the Philippines, Burma, Southern Yemen, Tashkent and Andalusia [southern Spain].”[iii][3]
Al-Qaeda’s actions have been entirely consistent with this view. The group provided equipment and training to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, which have been involved in an insurgency designed to establish an independent Islamic state. A flood of al-Qaeda-trained fighters poured from Afghanistan into Chechnya after the second Chechen war flared up in 1999. Al-Qaeda also provided assistance to Muslim insurgencies in Algeria, Egypt, Eritrea, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and even China.

Expansionist Vision

Al-Qaeda’s new caliphate would affect not only those forced to toil under its repressive government and residents of formerly Muslim lands who would be its targets; ultimately, it would mean bloodshed in the West, as well. Bin Laden has already stated that he is prepared to fight “against the Kuffar [unbelievers] in every part of the world.” According to al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the group has “the right to kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children.”[iv][4]

Even jihadist victories within the Muslim world can cause considerable harm in the West. Al-Zawahiri has explained that any lands conquered by the radical Islamist mujahideen would be used to further the jihad against the United States. For example, he has outlined the geopolitical importance of the current struggle in the former Soviet republics:

The liberation of the Caucasus would constitute a hotbed of jihad (or fundamentalism as the United States describes it) and that region would become the shelter of thousands of Muslim mujahidin from various parts of the Islamic world, particularly Arab parts. This poses a direct threat to the United States represented by the growing support of the jihadists movement everywhere in the Islamic world. If the Chechens and other Caucasian mujahidin reach the shores of the oil-rich Caspian Sea, the only thing that will separate them from Afghanistan will be the neutral state of Turkmenistan. This will form a mujahid Islamic belt to the south of Russia that will be connected in the east with Pakistan, which is brimming with mujahidin movements in Kashmir.[v][5]


Bin Laden’s ultimate aim is to forcibly impose his theocratic vision on the West. As his November 2002 “Letter to America,” began, “The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.” Second, he demanded that America “stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.” Bin Laden had an ambitious vision for ending the United States’ immorality and debauchery, including “reject[ing] the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and trading with interest.” Describing how he was “sadden[ed]” to have to tell Americans that theirs is “the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind,” bin Laden first chastised the United States as “the nation who, rather than ruling by the Sharia of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.”

Only after bin Laden calls Americans to Islam and outlines the many ways that the U.S. violates sharia law does he asks that America end its support for the governments of Israel, India, Russia, the Philippines and others.

The theologians influencing bin Laden have expressed views that further illuminate the perpetual conflict between the West and a potential al-Qaeda-sanctioned caliphate. The 9/11 Commission Report notes bin Laden’s heavy reliance on Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, and concisely explains Qutb’s significance:

Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jihiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jihiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jihiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims – as he defined them – therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.[vi][6]


Besides Qutb, other theologians cited by bin Laden believe that Islam and the West are locked in mortal combat. Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, pubically praised by bin Laden, argued in an essay entitled “The Call to Jihad in the Qur’an” that all Muslims are obligated to participate in a perpetual jihad against the non-Muslim world.[vii][7] Bin Humaid bases the much of his argument on Sura 9:29 of the Qur’an. He explains, “Allah revealed in Surat At-Taubah (Bara’ah) (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Mushrikun as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizyah (a tax levied on the non-Muslims who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in Verse 9:29).”

Beyond that, bin Humaid promotes an aggressive jihad for the purpose of establishing Islam: “And it is they, (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior. Allah has made them (Mujahidin) partners in reward along with all those who guard Islam with their weapons . . .”

A third theologian whom bin Laden references is Sheikh Salman al-Auda.[viii][8] Like Qutb and bin Humaid, al-Auda advocates perpetual conflict with the West. He has stated that “jihad is the highest Islamic goal,” and that Muslims should engage in it “to bring about the certain fall of the West.” Al-Auda’s book The End of History argues that the West is in a deterministic state of decay that “leads to its total collapse, sooner or later.” In the book, al-Auda proposes that Muslims should accelerate the West’s collapse by undertaking “actions that will facilitate the collapse of the American economy.” Al-Auda’s ideas clearly resonate with bin Laden’s recent boasts about the success of his plan to bleed America into bankruptcy.

Conclusion

There is nothing new about al-Qaeda’s use of deception to weaken the West’s resolve. In 1996, bin Laden told Robert Fisk that the Afghan mujahideen who had accompanied him to Sudan were definitely not engaged in training for future jihads. Fisk recounts bin Laden’s repudiation of this suggestion: “‘The rubbish of the media and the embassies,’ he calls it. ‘I am a construction engineer and an agriculturist. If I had training camps here in Sudan, I couldn't possibly do this job.’ And ‘this job’ is certainly an ambitious one: a brand-new highway stretching from Khartoum to Port Sudan, a distance of 1,200km (745 miles) on the old road, now shortened to 800km by the new Bin Laden route that will turn the coastal run from the capital into a mere day’s journey.” We now know this denial to be absolutely false. In fact, during his time in Sudan, bin Laden laid the groundwork for his current global terrorist network.[ix][9]

Al-Qaeda has again turned to deception as a means of gaining a strategic advantage in its war against the West. Although many continue to fall for the terrorists’ claims of reasonableness and a limited agenda, al-Qaeda has repeatedly made its true endgame clear: re-establishing a caliphate ruled according to Taliban-style Islamic law, re-conquering all formerly Muslim lands, and preparing Islamic super-state for perpetual conflict with the West. Ignore their true agenda at your own peril.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project, a Washington, D.C.-based terrorism research center. A 2002 graduate of the New York University School of Law, he previously worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Harry T. Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and as a commercial litigator at the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner.

Read the original at FrontPageMag.com

Unfashionable Facts About the Middle East

I am as pro-Israel as I am anti-Islam. I know that Israel has warts, just as I know that America has warts. I accept them because these states are best we have, and these states are fully capable of improvement. The latter is more than I can say about any state dominated by Islam.

Were it up to me, I would have America flaunt Israel before Islamic states by linking arm in arm and cleaning up the Middle East by using whatever it takes. Thus we could put Islam out of our misery.

The American Left allied with Islamists pushes the extinction of Israel. The major characteristic of their effort is their continuous LYING about Israel. Steven Plaut painlessly presents FACTS. Rather than try to synopsize an already brief article, here is what Mr. Plaut wrote:


Unfashionable Facts About the Middle East
By Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com December 17, 2004


1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation-state in 1312 B.C, 2,000 years before the rise of Islam, and was a nation before that.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C., the Jews have had dominion over the land for 1,000 years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The Arabs conquered Palestine in 635 AD, stealing it from its legitimate Jewish rulers, who had evicted the Byzantines while being led by a woman general, one Hefzibah, who then restored Jewish sovereignty. Palestine was stolen from the Jews by the Arabs and not the other way around. Arab sovereignty over Palestine ended in 1071 when the area was conquered by Seljuk Turks. “Palestinian” Arabs never held sovereignty over “Palestine” and cannot even pronounce the name of their supposed “homeland”. They cannot say “Palestine”.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Qur'an (Koran).

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be between 400,000 and 630,000, many of whom in fact were allowed to return after the Israeli war of Independence ended.. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be much larger.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, the Arabs are the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country smaller than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by 22 independent states, not including what Israel has offered the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended herself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. In the 1990s Israel gave the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The United Nations (U.N.) Record on Israel and the Arabs: Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 U.N. General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. Kind of like its silence over the massacres of Algerians or Sudanese by Arab fascists.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting their holy sites at the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Similar discrimination against Jews has continued under Israeli rule.


It Appears that Free Speech Is On the Way Out in the “Free World”

If Muslims have their way, no one in the world will have the right to free speech. Muslims believe that the appropriate speech is that which furthers he aims of Islam and that criticism is a crime, rather than an annoyance, punishable by law. Apparently they have convinced some in Western countries to pass “hate-speech laws” as in Britain and Canada. Australia passed a new “religious vilification law” that allows the prosecution of anyone that attempts to “essentially tell the truth about Islam.”

Canadian and U.K. pastors, journalists, and writers have been muzzled out of fear of prosecution for not only offering opinion, but by using the Koranic texts and other references to the life of Mohammad and Muslims in general.

The movement is beginning to catch hold in the United States. Among recent events, a San Diego townhall was convened to discuss how to protect Muslims from Islamophobia, a catch-all phrase coined to tar any critic or questioner with the brush of fear monger, racist, or religious bigot.

Europeans have wrestled with this problem for years. Those countries that haven’t done so already are planning to institute some type of regulation to muzzle criticism against Islam and Muslims in the hope of preventing violence against their citizens and averting war.

The Canadian and American branches of CAIR have contacted various bureaucracies in order to deflect and mitigate the effects of criticism that ordinary Canadians and Americans have. “Sensitivity training” for police and F.B.I. has take place, as well as for public-school personnel. Presently it is against policy to have “wrong thoughts” about Muslims and critical speech or even questions are not welcome and will result in censure by employers and bureaucracies.

This dangerous trend is coming about because few take the time to see generalization, the pattern. Instead they focus on local events and politics.

World patterns show that freedom of speech eventually disappears where there are Muslims. History also backs up this assertion, as the claim of Muslim tolerance in ancient times is a myth.

Take a step back and look at the big picture. There is no free speech anywhere in the Muslim world. Europe that is rapidly Islamizing has lost its tongue and critics are losing status, treasure, and even their lives, as we have seen with the firing of journalists, prison guards, and the like in Britain, and the death of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, to cite a few examples.

Americans must take note of this trend and not be fooled into believing that it won’t happen here because it is happening now in small increments. Think of our rights as a big block of stone. With every hammer blow we are losing our rights “one chip at a time,” all in the name of multiculturalism and so that we can accommodate the needs of a tiny minority of less than one percent of the total population. This is stupidity and insanity at work.




Thursday, December 16, 2004

Exploiting the Koran to Fund Terror

According to Daniel Pipes

Counterterrorism efforts got a major boost last week when a U.S. district court found three Muslim organizations and one individual, mostly based in the Chicago area, guilty of funding Hamas and fined them an astonishing $156 million.


Pipes states that the judgment did four things:

1. First, it validates and operationalizes a 1992 U.S. law that prohibits sending any money to terrorist organizations, not just money specifically tied to violence. Even funds used for medical care or education, the logic correctly goes, ultimately forward violence.

2. Second, this marks the first decision by a jury penalizing Americans who support terrorism abroad and making them liable to pay civil damages.

3. Third, it shows that “the American court system is prepared to bankrupt the Islamic terror network,” just as it earlier destroyed the Klu Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, two extremist and violent organizations, “by bringing unpayable large judgments against them.”

4. The case confirms the pattern of culpability among even the most innocent-appearing of Islamic institutions. According to Pipes, two of the three liable groups have known ties to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group; Holy Land Foundation serves as “its fundraising arm, Islamic Association for Palestine, it’s political front.” The Quranic Literacy Institute, a religious group based in a Chicago suburb that since 1991 hs engaged in the pious work of translating Islamic sacred texts from Arabic, then publishing them in English, appeared wholly unconnected to Hamas. In June 1998, Federal authorities seized $1 million in cash and assets, and have charged QLI with having for nine years supported “a conspiracy involving international terrorist activities and domestic recruitment and training in support of such activities.

Appearances can be deceiving. Moderate-appearing groups sometimes are “reactionary, harboring criminals, funding terrorism, and are involved in various illegal schemes, even “schemes of assassination.”

The lesson is clear: Wahhabi organizations like the QLI cannot be taken at face value but must be scrutinized for extremist, criminal, and terrorist connections. Extensive research, including undercover operations, is needed to find out the possibly sordid reality behind a seemingly benign exterior.


Bin Laden Urges Followers to Attack the Oil Fields of the Middle East

Osama bin Laden has revised his battle strategy that can hurt both the “Near Enemy,” the “corrupt governments of the Middle East,” and the “Great Unbelief,” the United States. He has exhorted his followers to attack the oil fields, knowing that in doing so he could attain his stated objectives using one strategy.

Did you know that currently

humanity is fueled by 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plants, 400 1 gigawatt oil-fired plants, 250 gas-fired plants, 350 nuclear power stations, 500 gigawatts of hydropower, 750 million fossil fueled vehicles, 130 exajoules for heating and cooling, 50 exajoules from the burning of traditional biomass.

Doing the math, in order to double the world's energy supplies over the next 50 years, the world will need to build, among other things, the equivalent of 2750 new 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power stations, 1000 new coal-fired 1 gigawatt power plants with carbon capture, 1.5 million windmills deployed over a bit less than 300,000 square miles, 2150 new nuclear plants, 1500 new 1 gigawatt hydropower stations, not to mention new solar and biofuel technologies.


Bin Laden claims that $50-a-barrel-oil is priced too cheaply and that the U.S. and other Western countries “are stealing oil from Muslims,” an incentive for resentment and an attempt to blackmail and extort the United States and other countries that currently rely on carbon-based petroleum products as the primary source of fuel.

France uses nuclear energy to generate 80% of its power and Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are getting more than 30% of their energy needs met by nuclear power.

Ironically, although the United States is the world’s largest commercial supplier of nuclear power it trails behind other countries in the total percentage of power generated. The figure in the U.S. was 20% in 2003, second only to coal generation. Because coal-generated plants are subject to fines under clean-air initiatives, the nuclear energy industry is again beginning to prosper.

Faced with these marketplace realities, the commercial nuclear industry is pursuing another alternative. The industry is pursuing, and is now beginning to receive, taxpayer dollars to subsidize the difference in the cost of nuclear and fossil-fueled generated electricity. Some of the largest and most successful energy companies are lined up at the public trough for what the industry calls an "investment stimulus."

First, in 2001, the nuclear industry succeeded in getting the Bush Administration "to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States."10 Next, in early 2002, the Secretary of Energy unveiled the Department's "Nuclear Power 2010 Program," "a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies, and demonstrate new regulatory processes leading to a private sector decision by 2005 to order new nuclear power plants for deployment in the United States in the 2010 timeframe."11


Nuclear power use was waning in the face of safety concerns. Accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine and Three-Mile-Island near Middleton, Pennsylvania, convinced the public that nuclear energy was not appropriate for the United States.

World competition for oil is at an all time high. Demand for oil is at an all-time high as countries continue to industrialize. China is an example of a country that is ramping up competition in order to feed its successful and every developing industrial complex.

Nuclear power plants are not impervious to terrorist attacks. Fears that terrorists could use airplanes or other methods of attack have caused federal regulators to again review and improve security at the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear power plants.

Spokesmen for both the commission and two Western U.S. nuclear facilities had said Sept. 11 that domestic plants were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 747. But officials said Friday that is simply untrue.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, the nuclear complex closest to Los Angeles, "is not designed for plane crashes," said Ray Golden, spokesman for Southern California Edison, which operates the plant.

"We're not on any of the flight paths, so that was not considered a credible threat," Golden said Friday.

Since the attacks in New York and Washington, concern about nuclear plant safety has mounted among nuclear critics and some elected officials.

In New England, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on Thursday wrote NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve with concerns about anti-terrorist protections.

Dean called for reassessing security at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant on the Connecticut River near Brattleboro, which, he reported, was cited for security lapses in 1998 and again early this year. Even though he has been told these deficiencies have been corrected, Dean wrote, "I would like the confidence that an overall review of Vermont Yankee security and security culture has been undertaken."



Although fossil fuels, coal, petroleum, natural gas, make up the bulk of electrical generation in the United StatesCoal, petroleum, gas, nuclear energy, the United States also produces electricity using alternative methods through wind turbines, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind farms, and small-scale solar energy plants. Although tidal/wave energy has been studied, currently there are no tidal wave energy farms in the U.S.

Biomass generating is viable alternative.

There are four primary classes of biomass power systems: direct-fired, co-fired, gasification, and modular systems. Most of today’s biomass power plants are direct-fired systems that are similar to most fossil-fuel fired plants. The biomass fuel is burned in a boiler to produce high-pressure steam. This steam is introduced into a steam turbine, where it flows over a series of aerodynamic turbine blades, causing the turbine to rotate. The turbine is connected to an electric generator, so as the steam flow causes the turbine to rotate, the electric generator turns and electricity is produced.


Generation of electricity is not the only use of energy that is under threat. The majority of the world’s automobiles currently use gasoline. Hybrid cars are being developed that run on both gasoline and electricity. There are some experimental automobiles that are able to run on other fuels such as natural gas, hydrogen, and even solar power.

The world would come to a standstill if bin Laden is successful. The bin Laden’s of the world understand that the only way to successfully attack the United States is through our economy. Using alternative fuels will be the only way the United States can save its economy from blackmailers and extortionists like Osama bin Laden that are determined to control and mete out oil on the basis of the rules of Islam.

Plain Crazy



A fascinating story from the Telegraph in England spells out clearly the destructiveness of "political correctness."

It starts with the BBC report of serious racial discrimination among Metropolitan Police. Like the American media, the BBC reported what it wanted, in contrast to objective facts. The Telegraph tells the rest of the story, beginning with "It did indeed find that black officers and staff faced discrimination. But its most explosive finding was that this problem was caused by political correctness, rather than remedied by it."

Then, in accordance with proper journalistic principles, the Telegraph asks "Why?" and answers. Hold on to your chair for the answer: "A disproportionate number of ethnic minority officers face disciplinary proceedings. Why? Because, in the post-Macpherson Met, the mere mention of race makes senior officers freeze like rabbits in the headlights, to quote one interviewee. And so, "when faced with minor misbehaviour by an ethnic minority officer, they will either retreat into the formal disciplinary process, with all the protections that the rules provide, or will turn a blind eye and only intervene at some later stage where serious misbehaviour has occurred"."

One of the purposes of political correctness is to destabilize society by destroying assimilation in any of its social forms. Pressure group politics replaces reason. In England, as in America, sundry pressure groups form and come forward to "get theirs." This report in England flushed out "the Association of Senior Women Officers, the Jewish Police Association, the Gay Police Association, the Association of Muslim Police and the Police Anglo-Italian Association." These groups complained that they have been overlooked. They suggest a nest full of hatchling birds all noisily and narcissistically competing for food from the parent bird .

The effect? The Telegraph article put it elegantly: " the balkanisation of police forces into self-obsessed lobbies." Do you still doubt? The Telegraph answers: " A Jewish employee deplores the lack of kosher food for riot police; an officer with arthritis complains that he is forced to stand up on the train; and so on."

When I was in the Navy in the 1990s, we underwent all sorts of "sensitivity" training, including for the absurd concept of "diversity." So, it is very clear what the Telegraph means when it says: "On the whole, however, the Morris report reveals more confusion than resentment. "There is no common understanding of diversity within the Metropolitan Police," it laments. In other words, awareness-raising exercises have created as much difference as they have managed."


One of the effects of political correctness has been to reduce people to becoming public fools, falling all over themselves to be "correct," without the slightest idea what that really means. To illustrate from the Telegraph: "One black policeman in the report says he felt pressured to join the Black Police Association, and is fed up with being "pushed to the front in photos".

If you want to know the origins of political correctness and its purposes, read David Horowitz's new book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

If you want to end "political correctness," to replace it with reason, then learn what the concept of Rights of Man means. Rights are social actions required by the nature of human beings for each to meet human needs. For elaboration, see my article "Do Not Support the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Rights resolve otherwise unresolvable messes like "diversity," and totally abolish "political correctness."

If you want a non-collectivized future, you must grasp once and for all the concept of rights and their proper implementation. Otherwise, you will continue to descend into a social "Dr. Caligari's Cabinet" while awaiting the arrival of the next Hitler.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Keep Your Eyes on England: Watch the Light of Freedom Go Out

A friend of mine in the U.K. has opened my eyes to dispel me of some unforgiveable naivete on my part. I had been giving Tony Blair and most of his government a big, warm-fuzzy, because they helped out in Iraq. I am still grateful for their help, but I no longer hold Blair and his government in any positive regard. The reason for that change comes with learning what Blair et al are doing to England and my alarm at parallel processes occuring in America.

Socialism ceased advancing in Britain a while back, but the fundamental ideas of socialism never ceased. Socialism is a political-economic-ethical system under which the state subordinates the individual by force if necessary to the omnipotence of the state. Socialism has several forms going by familiar names: socialism (per se), fascism and its Nazi variant, and communism. Commonly, people think of socialism as a state whereby the state itself owns all of the means of production. Direct socialism and certainly communism showed how useless this system is because production ceases, thereby impoverishing the looting state.

The post-WWII method of socialism has been fascism. Fascism holds the supremacy of the state over all individuals, but it goes through the fiction of appearing to leave ownership and control of property and means of production with the private sector. However, fascism dictates every aspect of every business and every individual with do and don't laws and regulations, including whether one can use or dispose of one's property without the specific sanction of the state. Well, ownership without control is not ownership. Individuals are left with the responsibilities to try to make their endeavors successful under fascism, but they live at the whim of the state, and they are bled dry by state taxation. Fascism relishes the use of force to achieve state ends, not as a last resort, but a first.

This is England of today, and sadly too much of America. Blair and his utterly totalitarian minded Home Secretary Blunkett are busy banning everything they can; they want to control all human activity of all those in the U.K. Blair, et al, are bloody fascists. Their latest assault is on freedom of speech. Putting stuff over on Britons is made altogether too easy since England does not have a written constitution; their guidance, such as it is, fulfills all of the evils of having a constitution be a "living document."

Blunkett, with Blair's full support, wants to make religious criticism an imprisonable offense. Specifically, he has taken Muslims under his wing, to protect their nefarious Islam and active jihadist activities. Against whom is he protecting these seditious and traitorious rabble? Why, he wants to protect them from protestations from BRITISH CITIZENS.

England, like continental Europe, has been utterly infested and infected with the worst of Islamic riff-raff. Mosques are centers for plotting the overthrow of Britain and any other non-Islamic country. The big enemy is capitalism because it is the moral-political system of freedom. Muslims have coalesced into gangs to terrorize Brits. What is going on in England with these practitioners of Islam reflects the same evil going on elsewhere in the world.

Why not snuff out these bad actors? For one, Muslims breed like cockroaches and have reached enough of a mass to make a-conceptual, power-lusting politicians court their votes and support. Second, so much of the English population have had their minds socialized. Thus, they extol all of the values and virtues of the Left. Their minds embrace the total state. It is very sad.

Britains face some very serious choices. 1) Emigration, like the Dutch are doing. 2) Submission. 3) Form a resistance movement. Few Brits can really leave, so that is not a big option. Submission is intolerable for people of authentic self-esteem. That leaves the option of resisting.

To resist, you have to have good ideas that guide you to the correct actions leading to the proper ends. No pro-freedom ideas seem prevalent in the England of today. To become free and to stay free, one has to have an integrated cascade of solid ideas tied to the requirements of reality, reason, rational self-interest, and the political system of capitalism. There are no alternatives.

The problem with Britain is not unique to Britain. Britain demonstrates what happens when citizens fail to give the explicit life-and-death importance to ideas. Societies are dynamic. Without the proper direction, they do not remain static; they still change. If they are not evolving, then they are devolving. For them to evolve, they must meet the requirements of holding explicit, life-and-death support of non-contradictory ideas leading to freedom; that support comes as ceaseless daily action, actions taken with full vigilance.

Watch Britain die. What is happening to Britain is happening to us. It is still not too late for us.

The U.N. Will Silence Cyber-dissidence...If It Can!

Another reason why Kofi Annan must go.

Freedom of speech is the enemy of all tyrants. Cyber-dissidence is on the rise and totalitarian regimes worldwide are working to regulate, control, or even shut down cyberspace, a wild west that has been beyond the pale of their control. Although not the only tyrrany, Islam, a tyrannical ideology finds cyberspace especially egregious to the iron grip that holds the minds of Muslim.

Syria and Tunisia: Enemies of the Web
By Nir Boms
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2004

Last month, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced the creation of a new group to exert control over what has remained a rare bastion of freedom: the Internet.

The group's forum is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Its 40 members, all appointed by Annan, include Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and Tunisia. In other words, several of the world's most repressive regimes will decide on matters of freedom of expression. Pakistan, Russia and Egypt, whose governments heavily censor Internet activity, are group members as well. Their selection for WSIS comes as no surprise, given the UN's past appointments of Libya to head a human rights committee and Saddam's Iraq to sit in a disarmament group.

At a Geneva meeting in November, WSIS members outlined an ambitious task that includes "definition of the Internet and Internet governance" and identifying "the main [Internet] players and their functions" as well as "current Internet governance mechanisms."

Of course, controlling the free flow of information is a complicated task that requires considerable work and study. The members agreed to produce a preliminary report that will be presented to another preparatory committee in April 2005. Curiously, the meeting is to take place in Tunisia, where in April 2003 nine young Internet users were sentenced to up to 26 years in prison for downloading files deemed by Tunisian authorities to be "dangerous."

But international task forces often take time to move forward and, apparently, there are those too impatient to wait. Some WSIS member states decided to implement some of their own recommendations before they were debated or ratified by the task force. While the 40 UN members met in Geneva, Syria decided to set up its own conference to build a partnership for an "information society" for the Arab world.

One world organization, Reporters Without Borders, holds undemocratic states to higher standards than the UN. "Holding a [UN] summit in Tunisia about the free flow of online information is already absurd," stated a recent report of the media watch-group. "But holding a preparatory meeting in a country like Syria, where an Internet user is in prison for simply e-mailing a newsletter, is chilling. Does this mean the Internet policies of these regimes are acceptable choices for the rest of the world?"

A quick glance at the "freedom of information" procedures currently implemented by some WSIS member countries may provide a partial—and gloomy—answer…

In Iran, two women journalists, Mahboudeh Abbasgholizadeh and Fershteh Ghazi, were arrested in October in connection with their work for pro-reform websites.

Abbasgholizadeh, the editor of Ferzaneh, a magazine about women's issues, was arrested following her return from the European Social Forum, where she addressed the issue of women in Iran. Ghazi, for her part, was accused of "immoral behavior" following her public writing about the violation of women's rights in Iran.

Saudi Arabia has created one of the world's most extensive national Internet filtering systems. According to official Saudi announcements, the government blocks access to nearly 400,000 web pages with the aim of "protecting citizens from offensive content and protecting the principles of Islam and the social norms." The Saudi Internet Services Unit (ISU) maintains the Internet censorship system, even offering an online form and e-mail address (abuse@isu.net.sa) for Internet users who would like to report sites they think should be blocked.

Syria, the host of WSIS's preparatory conferences, has only two Internet Service Providers (ISPs), both state-controlled. The Syrian Computer Society (SCS) intercepts e-mail in order to identify and monitor dissidents. For this reason, web-based e-mail services such as Hotmail are inaccessible in that country. Abdel Rahman Shagouri, a Syrian citizen, was arrested in February 2003 for mailing a newsletter, Levant News, from a banned website, www.thisissyria.net.

Massoud Hamid, 29, a journalism student and a member of Syria's Kurdish minority, was arrested in July 2003, accused of posting photographs of a peaceful Kurdish demonstration in Damascus on a Kurdish website. Shagouri and Hamid remain in solitary confinement, where Shagouri is reportedly tortured on a daily basis.

The list of cyber dissidents continues to grow at an alarming rate. The Internet, one of the few vehicles of free expression in the non-democratic world, is crucial to the work of freedom activists—and problematic to the regimes that seek to control the flow of information.

If only the UN would exert its power to secure freedom of expression, rather than bolstering the regulation of it. Hopefully, European and American representatives at WSIS will speak out—or else assaults on Internet freedom will go unpunished.

Nir Boms is Vice President of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East.



Osama's War on American Wealth

As do magicians, the Islamists have diverted our attention with acts of violence while they work toward their true goal: the destruction of our economy, the acquisition of our wealth and human capital, and the world dominance.

Osama's War on American Wealth
By Gal Luft
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 15, 2004

Although battlefield victories are crucial, history shows that global wars have been decided on a different kind of front: the war between economic powers. World War II soldiers clashed on the beaches of Normandy and Guadalcanal, but only when the German and Japanese war industries ran out of cash and raw materials did the wheels of the Whehrmacht and the Imperial Army finally grind to a halt. The Cold War could have gone on for decades if not for the depletion of the Kremlin's coffers.

The war on radical Islam is no different. Osama bin Laden plans strategies based on his victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The way to bring down a superpower, he has learned, is to weaken its economy through protracted guerilla warfare. We "bled Russia for ten years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden boasted in his October 2004 videotape.

The October video, released just before the U.S. election, offers a glimpse into the jihadist strategy. "We are continuing in the same policy to make America bleed profusely to the point of bankruptcy," said bin Laden. His logic is simple: To bring the U.S. to suffer a fate similar to that of the Soviet Union, the terrorists need to drain America's resources and bring it to the point it can no longer afford to preserve its military and economic dominance. As the U.S. loses standing in the Middle East, the jihadists can gain ground and remove from power regimes they view as corrupt and illegitimate while defeating other infidels who inhabit the land of Islam.

Three methods comprise al Qaeda's economic war against the U.S. The first is the destruction of high-cost qualitative targets by low-cost qualitative means. The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center is a perfect example of how terrorists can get more bang for their cheap buck. Bin Laden cited estimates that al Qaeda spent $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, which caused America to lose more than $500 billion. "Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million [U.S.] dollars," bin Laden concluded.

Bin Laden's second form of economic warfare involves forcing the U.S. to sink unsustainable amounts of funding into its defense agencies. The more the U.S. invests in defense, the more its domestic investment suffers neglect. Not much is needed, bin Laden reasons, to provoke America into expensive military interventions: "All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything." Bin Laden exaggerates -- but there's no denying the fact that between 2001 and 2004 U.S. military spending grew by more than one fourth since 9/11. America now spends an extra $100 billion per year on its military. Add to this the creation of a $30 billion-per-year Department of Homeland Security, and the billions directed to the State Department and other agencies aiding allies in the War on Terror and we discover a price tag of at least $150 billion annually to defend the U.S. against terrorism.

Oil, which jihadists call "the provision line and the feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader's nation," is the third component of bin Laden's strategy. Oil facilities and oil workers have been attacked around the world. In Iraq more than 170 attacks targeted oil pipelines. Rising oil prices partly reflect the "fear premium" added by oil terrorism. For the U.S., an importer of more than 10 million barrels a day, the spike in oil prices means a loss of over $50 billion in one year. The cause and effect are not lost on terrorists. "We call our brothers in the battlefields to direct some of their great efforts towards the oil wells and pipelines," reads a jihadist website. "The killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the international economy."

Attacks on oil serve jihadists in another, subtler way. Higher oil prices mean a historic transfer of wealth from oil-consuming countries -- primarily the U.S. -- to the Muslim world, where three quarters of global oil reserves are concentrated. This year, oil-producing Gulf nations increased their oil revenues by 45 percent. The windfall benefits jihadists as petrodollars trickle their way through charities and government handouts to madrassas and mosques.

Skyrocketing defense funding have already created the highest deficit since World War II and a national debt edging on its statutory limit. But despite al Qaeda's pricks, our economy is still robust and the attempts to cripple it seem like a fantasy. The billions of petrodollars flowing from the U.S. are eventually recycled as oil-producing countries buy American goods, services, and treasury bonds. This fortunate situation could change, though, if relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world continue to deteriorate. The Saudis worry that we might freeze their assets in the wake of another terrorist attack. Anti-American sentiment could inspire Muslim countries to shun the U.S. dollar, perhaps by shifting transactions to the Euro. OPEC is already considering switching to the Euro as its currency of choice for oil sales. Other Muslim countries contemplate using the gold dinar, a new gold-backed currency to be used in transactions among 57 Muslim states. Each of these moves would fulfill jihadists wishes.

Because of oil's role in the War on Terror, the U.S. stands to benefit enormously from reducing its dependence on petroleum. A coalition of hawkish Washington think tanks has shown that the U.S. can cut oil imports by half within two decades by deploying available technologies. This $12 billion "Set America Free" proposal enumerates ways to increase fuel efficiency and use domestically produced fuels that are not petroleum-based.

If we stay on the present course, America will bleed more dollars each year as its enemies gather strength. A smart combination of military and energy policies is our best hope for breaking the economic backbone of al Qaeda -- before the jihadists do so to us.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

YOU! YES, YOU! DO YOU GIVE A DAMN?

I subscribe to the daily listing of Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch articles. As I skimmed down the list for today, I experienced a number of thoughts and feelings. First, this list is not unique. These are articles from America and around the world. Much of the daily fare looks like this set. Second, the gestalt hit me.

We are in a war, I remembered. Then I wondered if others remember. Answer? I do not know, except for those who have loved ones in the armed forces. Does anyone know the enemy, I pondered? Are people still wondering if it "Islam, stupid?"

Lastly, from this gestalt, I asked two questions to Americans and anyone reading this anywhere: 1) Are you awake enough to care about who is doing what? 2) Do you give a damn about what is being taken from you daily?

For your gestalt, here is a simple listing of the contents of Jihad Watch for today. If this list does not stir you, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution:



Jihad Watch / Dhimmi Watch Digest
Tuesday, December 14, 2004


***** JIHAD WATCH *****
Home page:

New York Muslim admits contact with terrorists

Ahmed Sattar update. From Newsday, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist: Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Morvillo grilled Sattar in Manhattan about his knowledge of the sheik, the Islamic Group and their goals to overthrow the secular Egyptian government. Sattar insisted...
_____________________

Mullah Omar's security chief captured

One of the world's most wanted jihadists. From Reuters, with thanks to Ali Dashti: KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Afghan security forces have captured Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar's personal security chief as he travelled in a van to the southern...
_____________________

Foreign terrorists in Fallujah

Of course, the whole world now knows that foreign jihadists have been streaming into Iraq. I gave details of some of this movement even before the war in Onward Muslim Soldiers. But most analysts present these men as largely newly-minted,...
_____________________

Muslim Charities: Terrorists' Piggybanks

In FrontPage, Daniel Pipes comments on the significance of the Boim case (thanks to Jeffrey Imm for the link): Counterterrorism efforts got a major boost last week when a U.S. district court found three Muslim organizations and one individual, mostly...
___________________

Turkey's Radical Fringe Returns to View

A revealing look inside the soon-to-be newest member of the EU. From AP, with thanks to Anthony: ISTANBUL, Turkey - It's the sort of scene that rattles Turkey's Western-looking establishment: angry demonstrators raising fists for Islam and waving posters supporting...
_____________________

Suicide bombing kills 13 near U.S. Embassy

Attempts to disrupt the election continue. They will no doubt continue after the election as well. Attempting to establish democracy in Iraq is a dubious enterprise, as I have long noted; not because the Iraqis are somehow less capable of...

_____________________

A clarification from Mujahid-El-Masih

In mid-November I posted about a story from California's Paradise Post about an ex-Muslim who now calls himself Mujahid-El-Masih, who was quoted as saying that "the main theme of jihad is the murdering of Christians and Jews." I also posted...

____________________

German paper: Al Qaeda planning a huge assault

From the German Welt, translated for Jihad Watch by Gero Bauser: Berlin. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who is linked to Al-Qaeda, has allegedly announced a “mega” assault which would exceed 9/11 -- according to a follower, the Berlin “Tagesspiegel” says....
_____________________

***** DHIMMI WATCH *****
Home page:

Dhimmitude in Canada: St. Luke Covered up at Hospital

From CP, with thanks to Susan: The Calgary Health Region has placed doors in front of a stained glass portrait of St. Luke, the Beloved Physician, at the Foothills Hospital chapel so that it is no longer visible. A note...

_____________________

Dhimmitude in Asheville: "Spain's Islamic era can teach us plenty about tolerance"

This is another illustration of the dangers of whitewashed history: it becomes the foundation for contemporary political action. Here is a columnist in a North Carolina paper saying with a straight face that "we could do far worse...than imitating Spain's...
_____________________

Taking a stand in Europe

Anti-Semitism in Europe is an action of the radical Muslims who wish to remake Europe according to the dictates of the Sharia. Consequently it is everyone's problem, not just in general as a human rights issue, but as a specific...
_____________________

France tells Turkey 'admit to Armenian genocide'

Now here's a refreshing bit of anti-dhimmitude. From AFP, with thanks to Anthony: BRUSSELS, Dec 13 (AFP) - France wants Turkey to acknowledge the World War One massacre of Armenians during negotiations on its membership of the European Union, Foreign...
_____________________

Van Gogh Film Premieres in the Netherlands

How many more deaths like those of Fortuyn and van Gogh will there be in the Netherlands? From AP, with thanks to Anthony: The last movie by slain Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh -- a fictional thriller about the first...
_____________________

More information on the mentally ill Iranian girl facing death

Layla M update: "Mentally-ill girl who was sold for sex faces death penalty in Iran." From The Independent, with thanks to Anthony: A teenage girl with a mental age of eight is facing the death penalty for prostitution in Iran....

_____________________

Egypt: Al-Azhar bans book on Islam by ... George Bush

They banned it because it says Islam spread by force and persecuted Christians. Are the "experts on Islamic history" who commented on the book in Cairo really experts on Islamic history, or on the whitewashing of that history? All this...

_____________________

Christmas Santas banned in French kindergarten

And why? Because the French don't have the courage to say that the threat they face comes from the Muslim jihadists who want to make France over into an Islamic state. They don't have the courage to say that Islam...

_____________________

Arab Christians between thoughts of subjugation and freedom

Important reflections on the Christian communities of the Middle East from Habib Malik, one of the most superbly insightful commentators on the scene today. From Lebanon's Daily Star, with thanks to Ted Robertson and Dagald Walker: Christian communities native to...
_____________________

France pulls plug on Arab network

Better late than never. From the BBC, with thanks to all those who sent this in: France's highest administrative court has banned a TV station on the grounds that it is inciting racial hatred. The Council of State ordered France-based...

_____________________

Iran: Girl With Mental Age of Eight Given Death Sentence After Mother Forced Her Into Prostitution From Early Age

From Amnesty International, with thanks to Twostellas: A 19-year old girl, “Leyla M”, who has a mental age of eight, reportedly faces imminent execution for “morality-related” offences after being forced into prostitution by her mother as a child. According to...

_____________________

IslamOnline: "British Muslims Irked by Telegraph’s 'Repulsive' Article"

More Moore fallout, from IslamOnline, with thanks to Nicolei: CAIRO, December 13 (IslamOnline.net) – A Daily Telegraph’s "repulsive" article on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam gave Muslims in Britain quite a shock, calling it a telling example of ignorance and...
_____________________


Look these over. Pinch yourself. And, if you have not read at least two books telling the truth about Islam, start today. The best place to begin is with Mark Alexander's excellent intro book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age.


Monday, December 13, 2004

Delaying Marriage Gets Passing Grades

Here is an uplifting, though surprising, account of reform and progress of the condition of women in one Muslim country, Egypt.

European Muslims are shocked and angry about recent news stories and editorials that characterize the Prophet Mohammad as a pedophile stating that in his day, the eight century, marriage between men that are sometimes men old enough to be the brides' grandfathers, was considered normal, and thus can not be technically labeled as pedophilia. How, then, can be characterize the contemporary practice of marrying child-brides to older men that is occurring at this moment in time, not only in Hindu India, famous for such a practice, but in the modern Middle East, East Asia, North Africa, and anywhere Muslims presently reside, even in Europe and the U.K. where Muslims are agitating to silence those critics that find the practice abhorrent.

Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent Christine Spolar tells us about the plight of young girls caught in this system, and the progress that only some of them are making to break away from this ancient tradition. In an encouraging “web of Egyptian programs” that may become a model for the rest of Egypt and, perhaps the rest of the Middle East, young girls are becoming literate and are being taught basic skills that could help them become less dependent upon marriage and more able to maintain themselves.

For the first time, girls are being given such basic information as how their bodies function and where babies come from. Previously they found out this information on the wedding night, and repeatedly bearing children that became burden “only to be married off as quickly as possible.” Most child brides come from villages where 70 percent of the girls marry before 18, some are consummating marriage as young as 13 or 14. Surprisingly, not all young brides in the Middle East are from Muslim families; some are Coptic Christians for whom “early marriage is a tradition.”

The medical community has long known of the risks to children bearing children: high mother and infant mortality, weak and sick babies, and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases transferred by older, more experienced husbands that regularly infect their young wives with all manner of SDS as well as AIDS.

The program had to overcome parental fear and suspicion. Accommodations have been made to make discussion groups, sports participation, and the like, acceptable to parents, imams, and priests, but the girls are getting more information and opportunities are being available that would have seemed impossible.

Persuasion by teachers and others came about as parents were told that “nothing in the Koran prohibits women from school, and Islam celebrates educated women.” Girls were encouraged to come home and teach other siblings what they had learned that day, a benefit for the family and the whole community.

The girls became empowered as they learned, even to the point that they began to ask questions about why they had been circumcised as small children. Discussion with their mothers showed that adult females had received incorrect information about menstruation and other intimate topics. The information had been incorrectly passed down for generations.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the British government, and other non-governmental agencies initially funded the program, Ishraq. The U.S. State Department “is weighing whether educating girls into womanhood translates into its vision of reform in the Middle East. Ishraq is being considered for hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a broad aid program aimed at spreading and supporting democracy.”

The program is making changes. Girls are determined to save younger siblings from illiteracy and the pain of circumcision, and they are feeling empowered to delay marriage and to have a say in their future as they have learned the skills of persuasion. Some are even contributing economically to lift their families out of poverty.

The situation for European Muslims is different. Europeans are becoming aware of child brides as they are appearing on European soil because families seek brides from their countries of origin even though the practice is illegal in all Western countries. Feeling pressured by non-Muslims to conform to community and national standards that are odds with Muslim practices, as they know them, Muslim communities have created a code of silence to protect families that engage in this practice from detection. Girls and women are returning to school and work in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically there are many young brides in Europe, and sometimes America, that will never be educated and are abused and trapped into marriages from countries such as Egypt where reform is taking place.

Read the original.

The Facets of the War of Ideas

How Terrorist Propaganda Kills, by Rachel Ehrenfeld, FrontPageMagazine.com, December 10, 2004

So many good thinkers fully grasp the problem, namely that this war with Islam is a war of values, of ideas that underlie all of our choices and actions. Very few see what the idea solution truly is because they see a Hobson's choice. One the one hand, there are the dispicable values of Islam. Opposing on the other hand are the values of what most proclaim about our culture, that it is of Judeo-Christian origin. Vast numbers of people accept this as "gospel," so to speak, and never call any of it into question, thus problems never improve. At some level, people know that the ideas from religions are not sufficient to arm their minds, but they see no others, and they give up ideas.

In any conflict, the most consistent side wins, if it persists. In this case, Islam is winning, and if the West does not reacquire the values based solely on reason and rational egoism, it will rot to rubble before the jihadists can take it down. They will win by default.

This war of ideas has many facets. Here is just one facet: the Bush Administration's apparent total lack of regard for ideas in the war, the Blair Administration's embrace of the Islamic criminals, and the completely idealess pragmatism of Europeans who insist on remaining blind to those who are eating them from inside to out like a cancer. To these men and women, this is a war of fighting men, machinery, materiel, backroom deals and lots of money. To our opponents, this is a war of ideas.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, in this article cited, shows how some of this non-war on non-ideas is working. And it is working against us, big time. Here are just a few tidbits showing how the West is destroying itself with its own hands:

Tony Blair and the Europeans are focusing their attention on the creation of a Palestinian state as the magic formula for peace in the Middle East. At the same time, they are turning a blind eye to the growing propaganda and fundraising campaign on websites and TV stations in their own countries.


And England is not alone. While the French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin is calling to shut down Al-Manar, Hizbollah’s TV broascasting in France, his country continues to host the Paris-based HAMAS front organization, Votre Partenaire Humanitaire en Palestine (CBSP), which also publishes anti-West hate propaganda, and whose website calls for contributions to be sent to a Post Office box in Nancy.


Equally disturbing is the Europeans’ blasé attitude towards the virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli broadcasts of the Iranian-sponsored and controlled TV network, Al-Manar. This Hizbollah mouthpiece spews anti-American incitement and propaganda, which has increased dramatically since the Iraq War. Al-Manar, through its programs, also serves as a fundraising vehicle for both the Islamic Jihad and HAMAS organizations in the Palestinian territories.

The French Eutelsat satellite company, which was formed by the European Space Agency, distributes Al-Manar to Europe and North Africa. The Dutch New Skies Satellites (NSS) company, recently acquired by the American Blackstone Group, distributes Al-Manar to North Africa and parts of Europe. Despite its suffering radical Islamist terror last March, and subsequently arresting many Islamist operatives, Spain allows the Madrid-based Hispasat company to continue broadcasting Al-Manar to South American countries, where the number of Muslim converts is growing exponentially.

What is most surprising, however, is that California-based Telestar, the world’s largest global satellite corporation, facilitates the broadcasting of Al-Manar into North America and Canada. It is surprising because the Patriot Act defines the facilitation of communication for terrorist purposes as a terrorist act. Providing satellite broadcasting and internet services to terrorist groups meets that criterion.


We have few radio stations and one television station going into Iraq, as just one example. It is as though our culture is not superior, and we must not inflict it on others. Sending in ideas is the cheapest and in the long run the most effective tool we have at our disposal.

The effectiveness of ideas comes from people in oppressed situations seeing the contrast between their lives and those who live in prosperity. Add in direct presentation of ideas enabling humans to live free, and you appeal to the nature of people as people. The metaphysical nature of mankind is the same world-wide. The nature of rights, which enable human nature to flourish, is the same world-wide. The appeals of these are enormous, particularly to the young. They should be continuously dosed round-the-clock on radio, television, books, and every other medium, targeting them, and explicitly expressing those ideas and showing how these ideas--OUR IDEAS--enable humans to live as humans, thereby continuously countering those which turn people into Islamic rabble.

Our culture is superior to theirs. It is superior in every way. The ideas underlying the best of our culture are the best in the world. We need to flaunt them, and flaunt them ostentatiously as well as continuously.

Because those in power do not respect the power of ideas, they enable our destroyers, who clearly do respect the power of ideas.

It is always the same formula: Humans live by means of ideas; Ideas create cultures; Cultures create civilizations; Civilizations move history. Ergo, ideas move civilizations. That movement can be upward, toward the good, or quite the opposite.

The Trojan Horse of Wahhabism

The Trojan Horse of Wahhabism
By Stephen Schwartz
Tech Central Station | December 13, 2004
found at FrontPageMag.com

As international attention remains occupied with the terror murder of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic extremist, and the long-term implications of the spread of Islamic fundamentalism within Europe, Greece continues to be roiled by a debate over the proposed construction of the first state-recognized mosque in the vicinity of Athens in modern times.

The Islamic Center in the Athenian suburb of Peania, more than 15 miles northeast of Athens near the new international airport, will be financed directly by the King Fahd Foundation of Saudi Arabia. According to the Arab News, an English-language Saudi daily, some 8.5 acres were donated by the Greek government for the structure. Foreign assistance for the radicalization of Islam in Greece will inevitably be a central element of the activities at the mosque, which will be very large, intended, it is said, to accommodate all of the estimated 120,000 Muslim faithful in the capital city. The total number of Muslims in Greece is estimated at more than 500,000.

A major portion of the current Greek nation-state was still under the Ottoman Empire less than a century ago. Western European journalists who have tended to report the debate over the mosque as if it stemmed entirely from the fact that the Ottomans ruled Greece for more than 400 years are wrong. Rather, the problem has everything to do with the international spread of Wahhabism, the violent, exclusivist, and fanatical Islamic sect that is the state religion in Saudi Arabia.

Athens is the only capital city in the European Union that lacks a state-recognized mosque. There are many former mosques in Athens, but they all were desacralized as Muslim holy sites following the end of Ottoman Turkish governance. As a result, Muslims in Athens meet and pray in dozens of improvised mosques in garages and private homes. The government views this as a problem since these informal gathering places are considered to be inevitable breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism. Non-Muslims imagine that the improvised mosques will eventually be dominated by demagogues and recruiters for al-Qaeda.

In reality, the demography of Islam in Greece, both among indigenous Muslims and among most immigrants, is a barrier to radicalization. Turkish, Thracian, and Albanian Muslims have a long and proven history of rejecting Muslim fundamentalism, which they correctly identify with Wahhabism, as an Arabic import into the European environment in which they live. Their Islam follows the pluralistic Hanafi school of religious law, and they have learned that survival is based on coexistence with their Christian neighbors, rather than agitation against them.

About 100,000 ethnic Albanians reside in Athens, but Kosovar Albanian journalist Daut Dauti, an expert on Albanian Islam and ethnic issues, said, "There is no place for fundamentalism in the Albanian Muslim mentality. We have complaints about the treatment of Albanians in Greece . . . but we have a tradition of resisting Islamic fundamentalism, and problems with the Greeks will not become a pretext for Wahhabism to increase its influence."

Greece also has a notable Kurdish presence, which overwhelmingly follows the Sufi way of Islam. The Kurds, like all Sufis, are extremely hostile to Islamic fundamentalism.

However, other immigrant groups may be tempted to embrace radicalism. Arab and Pakistani Muslim radicals could infiltrate Islam in Greece, although it is difficult to imagine their dominating it without significant outside help. Greece has long taken a favorable position toward Arab interests in general, based partly on its historic relations with the Arab Orthodox and other Arab Christian churches. In addition, Greece has a recent history of leftist hostility to Israel.

Some Greek observers believe that attracting so many Muslims to a single place in Peania will relieve the Greek authorities of having to keep track of potential proliferation of radicalism in the dozens of informal mosques in Athens. But, in many other cities in Europe, Muslim radicalism has grown from seeds planted in Saudi-financed religious centers, and governmental oversight has done nothing to stop extremist activities, such as those in Britain, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, where recruitment of terrorists continues.

The Dutch Moroccan who murdered van Gogh attended a mosque purchased in 1999 with a 1.5 million euro loan from the Saudi charity Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, which has since been designated by the U.S. and Saudi governments as an organization providing financial, material, and logistical support al Qaeda.
Besides the Netherlands, Al Haramain formerly had offices in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, which have since been closed by the respective governments. An employee of the Tirana office was involved in support for al-Qaeda, and was implicated in the murder of a senior official of Albania's moderate Muslim community.

Under the best circumstances, few Western governments have an understanding of what goes on inside mosques, and the number of government agents and hours needed to train them to conduct adequate monitoring of mosques would be enormous.

What makes a Wahhabi mosque so dangerous?

First, Wahhabi preaching and teaching to such a congregation will be fundamentalist, indoctrinating young and old in hatred, contempt, and distrust of Jews, Christians, and non-Wahhabi Muslims.

Second, it will propagandize in favor of violence in places such as Iraq, Israel, and Chechnya. Wahhabi mosques serve as centers for the dissemination of extremist literature, including the "Saudi edition of Qur'an," a revised version of the Islamic scripture with insertions and distortions that make it an extremist document. The collection of money and the distribution of videos extolling jihad combatants also take place in these mosques. The step from such activities to direct recruitment of these combatants is small, as evidenced by the enlistment of British subjects to fight in Chechnya and American citizens who become al-Qaeda operatives.

Since many Muslims in Greece are inured to the fundamentalist appeal, and some might even boycott a Saudi mosque, the immediate danger of radical agitation may be limited. Still, the erection of such mosques reinforces the hold of Saudi authorities over global Islam, a phenomenon that has led to the emergence of al-Qaeda, which is financed by Saudis, led by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi subject, and mainly composed of Saudi foot soldiers. The intimidating presence of Wahhabism is a powerful means of convincing "new Muslims" (Muslims eschew the term "convert") that fundamentalism is the only way forward, as has been demonstrated by the many cases of American, French, and other non-Muslims drawn to Islam, who then walk straight into the ranks of terrorist conspirators.

Among a range of feasible alternatives Greece could consider would be to demonstrate its good will toward its Muslim citizens and residents by allowing the reconsecration of one of the historic mosques in Athens. From a national security standpoint, this would be far preferable to permitting the construction of a Wahhabi religious complex within its borders. Greece, like its fellow members of the European Union, must also face up to the Wahhabi threat.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

In Britain a "Man's Castle" May No Longer Be Forcefully Defended

Belmont Club offers a plausible reason why Europeans, in this case, those in the U.K. are uneasy about protecting themselves for burglary, aggression, or even invasion.

In the U.K. it is illegal to use any kind of force when confronting a burglar in one’s home. Dr. Ian Stephen “an Honorary Lecturer (Forensic Psychology) at Glasgow Caledonian University” and “a consultant to forensic psychology television series Cracker” gave some advice to householders on the appropriate way to handle a home invasion. The advice was given in response to heightened public fears caused by the murder of British financier John Monckton who was tricked into opening his door by burglars impersonating mailmen. Dr. Stephen gives some advice to U.K. residents that would astound Americans

if you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top" manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home.


That being the unfortunate case the Briton is advised to make the best of a bad situation by acting in the following way.

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".


"Cooperate but initiate nothing". We will return to that phrase in a moment, but first we must continue with Dr. Stephen's cautionary advice. He says it is important not to affront or startle the burglar in any way, not simply out of a regard for their feelings, for whose hurt the householder may liable, but to avoid arousing an aggression which it is expressly forbidden to resist.

Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim and in many cases when things go wrong it is the perpetrator of the crime who panics. Although they sometimes go equipped with weapons, in most cases they probably don’t intend to use them but in the heat of the moment, and the fear of either getting caught or attacked themselves, they use them. They don’t expect the person they are trying to hold up to retaliate or react. Mostly the knife is there simply for intimidation rather than intent to use it and they finish up killing somebody by accident rather than design.


If you are stabbed or shot it is your fault, as the Moncktons learned to their cost. You are advised to simply stand there, eyes fastened on the floor as if nothing were happening in the hope that you will not be noticed.

The poster, “wretchard,” goes on to infer that Dr. Stephen’s advice “to take no unilateral action” must have been offered to Kori Annan, and he follows with a passage from George Orwell that describes what happens we passively allow ourselves to become victims. It’s worth the read.

Obviously in the U.K. one’s home is no longer his castle, or better still, the U.K. seems to be no longer their home as they are being run out by pushy immigrants.

Are We 'Mired in a Religious War'?

Are we “mired in a religious war?” Did we ask for this war and deserve what we get? Some people really believe that the United States illegally went to war and deserves to be trounced by the Islamists.

According to The Method of Mohmmad, the jihadis were out to get us and have us in their sights because the United States is now considered to be “The Great Unbelief,” the enemy of Islam, and would have been whether or not we ever set foot on the Arabian Peninsula or decided to pre-empt Saddam Hussein. The Koran gives them the impetus and the Sira, the chronological description of the life of Mohammad tells them how to do it.

Why are the Iraqis and their co-religionists so against the presence of Americans that are attempting to purge their country of ba’athists, criminals, and troublesome jihadis that have come only for war? According to Sam Harris at the Washington Times:

…Iraqi insurgents know that we did not come to their country to rape their women or to kill innocent civilians. Every thinking person in the Muslim world understands that if our goal had been to kill Iraqis and steal their oil, millions of Iraqis would now be dead and their oil would be flowing. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on Earth, we should still expect tomorrow's paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself to bits for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women and children.


Every thinking person that has studied or become aware of the smallest amount of information about Islam and jihad has learned or been informed that the jihad is not a political movement, it is a religious obligation that is taken up “for the purpose building up the wealth and power of the Islamic community and bring the world under a single Islamic state.” This is stated clearly in various Islamic texts and is proclaimed loudly by scholars, sheikhs, and imams somewhere in the Muslim world at any given moment.
The Iraqi insurgency wishes to destroy the American Army and to create an Islamic state in the ashes of Saddam’s agnostic secular state, to appropriate the oil wealth and human capital of the Iraqi people, not to allow them self-determination and freedom of thought and action, but for the furtherance of the goals of Islam.

The “Near Enemy,” Saddam Hussein has been destroyed thanks to the American Army, and now America itself, the “Great Disbelief,” is the next and ultimate target. Even if we pull out today, the jihad against America will continue, for the goal is the destruction of the West and the creation of a one-world Islamic state using any means necessary to arrive to that end.

Our problem now is to determine how to stop a nihilistic enemy, armed with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, that is determined to destroy us, or perhaps go with us into the next world, as the attainment of “Paradise” and the kingdom of Allah on earth matters not whether anyone, Muslim or Infidel, survives.

The Truth This Time from France

Dhimmi Watch: Hugh Fitzgerald on Denis MacEoin, racism, and posting here

A French academician, who uses the nom de plume of "Pelayo," wrote one of the most moving set of comments recently to a Jihad Watch article. What is so moving was how Pelayo writes the unvarnished truth, and the truth is always powerful. Click the link to see the article that inspired Pelayo's comments, his full comments, and the comments of others.

Pelayo wrote in response to a JW writer, Hugh, who was responding to someone who had cancelled his subscription to JW because of the quality of the comments posted on JW. It is extremely important to recognize that these comments, unmoderated as they are, are the VOICE OF THE WORLD. They come from numerous foreign countries as well as America. Most of them come from those who cannot get the truth from their own journalistic media and have nowhere to express their outrage at what is happening to them and to the world as a result of Islamic jihad.


The following has been edited only slightly to minimize references to the original JW article which have not been reproduced here:


I am a Frenchman, and I discovered this site accidentally about a year ago...and reading its contents was like being given oxygen. I suppose that, as Hugh says, most people reading this site are Americans, and certainly an overwhelming majority are English speakers (English, Australians, etc...). But I am a continental European, and while this site has frequent postings about Europe, what most of you do not realize is that very little of what YOU read on this site, even about Europe, is almost never reported in Europe's MSM [main stream media]. Let me give you an example. We are all familar with the case of Theo van Gogh. Well, here in France, this sharia killing was barely reported, and few of my neighbors and colleagues are aware that this happened. It was not discussed in the media in any meaningful way. When it was, the conversation turned almost instantly to "xenophobia", and "racism". You in America often complain about the American media...but you have no idea how GOOD you have it over there. The French media is Soviet...important news never reported...what news is reported is hopelessly slanted...there is nothing like Fox News in France, no papers or magazines that dissent from the government line...and don't forget that many French people do not have access to Internet, and there is only a very small "blog culture".

The point is, that for a European like me, this site is one of our only connections to the "real world"...the only place where we can see, written in black and white, what is going on BOTH HERE, and elsewhere.

Yes, Hugh writes eloquently about the collapse of European culture. With all, and I mean ALL, respect to Hugh...it's one thing to write about it...it's quite another thing to live it...to see your culture, your history, your civilisation, disappearing before your eyes...and for what?

Day by day, slowly, before my eyes, my country, France, is ceasing to exist, and is being replaced by the most alien, aggressive, backward belief system...being taken over, man by man, family by family, in the hideous apartment blocks that ring all of France cities, by a population whose belief system permits them to look at us, the French, with only the deepest contempt, and yes, hatred. And yet, with your American French jokes aside, France was one of the glories of the world, one of the greatest of civilisations.

And don't forget...there, but for the grace of God, will go America one day.

There is no independent press, no independent thinking, in Europe any more. Americans must once and for all drop your idea of "Europe" as it was from 1945 to 2000. That Europe is gone forever. France, and all of Europe, is sinking into the dark abyss of Islam...from which no civilization has ever re-emerged.

Hugh is right, we are changing the way we live...slowly, in small increments. I live in a large French city. I no longer leave my home on the week-ends, except for Sunday morning. From Friday night until Sunday morning, the streets of the biggest French cities do not belong to the French. Sunday afternoon the shift occurs again, and we hand our streets back to the alien population for a few hours. Few of my neighbors leave their homes either. Or they go to their country houses...that way they don't have to admit so readily that they are changing the way they live. We have modified our lives, our shopping habits, our social habits, to adapt ourselves to this new reality. We never shop on the week-ends any more...we organize everything so that we will not have to stare the new reality in the face. I find myself having thoughts like "So this is how the Christians in Constantinople must have felt"...I realize that I am living in the new Alexandria. We cannot send our children to public schools. We all know why we are doing it, but none of us will talk about it. That's racist, you see.

While some complain about the "content" of the replies on this site...I think of how when I drive out of my city, and into any other French city, I see hideous concrete block after hideous concrete block, with each apartment adorned with a satellite dish, and I think of what "news", what "information" is pouring into those rooms, and into the heads in those rooms...what is the "content" of those media outlets. One should worry far more about that than about some over the top statements found at dhimmiwatch.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 9, 2004 07:42 AM

The Method of Mohmmad: The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy – A Reminder from Lawrence Auster

The American attention span is short. Tired of war, tired of the putting up with restrictions on our basic freedom, tired of listening to the tiresome endless rhetoric about the war, about the election, the cabinet nominations, Americans are beginning to drift back into a state of complacency and complaint. Here is a reminder of against whom we are fighting and why they do what they do.

What Do People Believe About the War?

There is still no unified concept of why we are at war. People on the anti-war left believe that Al-Qaeda attacked us because we are imperialist, or we are racist, or because we don’t do enough for Third-World hunger. Those on the mostly pro-war right, especially President Bush, believe that Islamists hate us for our sins, and the right believes that they hate us for our virtues. Both sides “commit the same narcissistic fallacy of thinking” that the Islamist holy war against the West revolves solely around ourselves, around the moral drama of our goodness or our wickedness, rather than having something to do with Islam itself.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Mary Habek, a military historian at Yale University, said that the various jihadist groups base their war against non-Moslems on the Islamic sacred writings, particularly the SIRA, which, unlike the Koran, tells the Prophet’s life in chronological sequence. Using Mohammad as their model, the jihadis live and think and act within the paradigms provided by the stages of Mohammed’s political and military career. This internally driven logic of Islam, and not any particular provocation, real or imagined, by some outside power, is the key to understanding why the jihadis do what they do.

KEY POINT: the paradigms of the Sira

1) The first stage or paradigm: Mohammad’s early life in Mecca, a non-Islamic society where Moslems are powerless and oppressed.
2) The second paradigm: the hejira, the escape from Mecca to Medina, a new place that is more pure and where a true Islamic society and state can be founded.

After this, the hejira, the Islamic state is formed:

3) The third paradigm kicks in. This is jihad, organized violence against non-Moslems for the purpose of building up the wealth and power of the Islamic community and bringing the world under a single Islamic state.

Jihadists conceive and rationalize their own activities in terms of paradigms. When Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan, when he left Sudan for Afghanistan, he saw those journeys as corresponding with the hejira, leaving a corrupt land, where he was powerless, for a more pure Islamic place from which jihad could be waged.

KEY POINT: Methods to waging jihad- the Method of Mohammad

In addition to the three paradigms, there are three basic approaches to waging jihad called collectively the Method of Mohhamad. The various Islamist groups respectively use this toward the ultimate goal of establishing the world-wide rule of Islam. The jihadis’ choice of method depends on whom they see as their immediate enemy in that larger struggle; each jihadist group is defined by which of these methods it adopts.

1) Method One: fight the Near Enemy prior to fighting the Far Enemy. The Near Enemy is anyone inside Islamic lands, whether it is an occupier or someone who has taken away territory that used to be Islamic.

2) Method Two: fight the Greater Unbelief—the major enemy, which today is the United States—before the Lesser Unbelief.


3) Method Three: fight the Apostates first, and then the other Unbelievers. Apostates are false Moslems, people who call themselves Moslems but aren’t, a group that includes secularist Moslems such as Saddam Hussein as well as Shi’ites, who are considered heretics.

KEY POINT: Deeply embedded notions of the jihad’s reading of the life of Mohammad determine their major strategic directions and whom they choose to kill, not what is happening in what we think as the real world.

For example, the terrorists who murdered 190 people in Madrid in March 11, 2004, did not target Spain because of its involvement with the U.S.-led Iraqi reconstruction; the group had been planning the Madrid attack for two years, going back to before the American invasion of Iraq. They attacked Spain because it was the Near Enemy—a formerly Islamic land that they hoped to win back for Islam.

Most of Spain had been an Islamic state for about 700 years until the defeating battle with Isabella and Ferdinand in 1492.

Similarly, regarding the all-important question whether the Wahhabist Osama bin Laden would have been willing to work with the secularlist Apostate Saddam Hussein in an attack on America, Habeck says it it is entirely possible, because bin Laden believes that his primary enemy is the Greater Unbelief, the United States, and therefore in the short term he would cooperate with an Apostate such as Hussein. Then, after America had been finished off with Hussein’s help, bin Laden with the enhanced power and prestige gained from that victory could redirect the jihad back at Hussein and other Moslem Apostates.

One can look Islamic battle symbols Hussein added to the Iraqi flag to understand that he joined hands with bin Laden and the jihadis.

KEY POINT: While specific actions by the West might provoke the jihadis to greater attacks, their fundamental strategic and military decisions are not determined by anything done by the United States or Europe or by other major enemies of Islam such as the Hindus, but rather by which Method of Mohammad each jihadi faction follows, and each of these strategies has its own internal rationality, thought it is not a rationality that makes sense in non-Islamic terms.

KEY POINT: Wahhabism began in the 18th century when there was no Western colonial power in the Islamic world’ it was not set off by any Western intrusion into the Moslem lands. Similarly, the contemporary Islamist idea that America is the center of all that is evil in the world, making America the “Greater Unbelief,” was conceived by a Moslem scholar between 1948 and 1951 when he was residing in the United States. This was decades before the U.S. had any large-scale involvement with Israel, and decades before its culture spiraled downhill, though, from the point of view of that visiting Moslem, America was already quite decadent at that point and ripe for destruction.


KEY POINT:What is most striking in the Method of Mohammad is the utter absence of any transcendent notion of morality. Unlike in traditional Western religion and philosophy, where God or the Good is the measure of human actions, in Islamism (which after all is simply a pure form of Islam) the measure of human actions is the shifting power tactics and military strategies of a desert brigand and war leader.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Dearborn, Michigan. America's Muslim Capital

Did you know that Dearborn, Michigan is home to more Muslims outside the Middle East other than Paris, France? In 2003, Dearborn had 100,000 Americans of Arab descent that represent various nations and persuasions: Arab Christians, “moderate” Muslims, and even some Muslim “extremists.”

Dearborn is divided into three sections. Southfield Freeway separates the city’s Western and Eastern worlds, roughly demarcating three neighborhoods: Southend is mostly populated by Yemenis; East Dearborn is a bustling Lebanese community of Arab restaurants, bakeries, and halal butchers; and West Dearborn’s residential streets remain populated by Italian and Polish immigrants.

Muslims have been a presence in Dearborn since the 19th century, when men from the Lebanese Biqa Valley, working as peddlers and traders, followed a larger number of Lebanese Christian émigrés to the U.S. When Henry Ford began to offer generous five-dollar daily wages for workers at his Highland Park assembly line in 1913, Detroit became the predominant destination for Lebanese immigrants. Immigration accelerated when Lebanon’s economy fell apart in the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of World War I. The restrictive National Origins Act of 1924 reduced Lebanese immigration to a trickle, but over the next twenty years, wives and dependent children, whom the Act still allowed to immigrate, gradually reunited with their husbands and fathers. In 1927, Ford shifted operations to the Rouge River plant in his native Dearborn, and a Muslim neighborhood soon followed.

By the close of World War II, the Dearborn population numbered about 200 families. Most subsequent immigrants–Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi–arrived in Dearborn as political refugees, with only Yemenis coming to Dearborn in this period primarily for economic opportunity (see sidebar). Collectively, the communities in Dearborn represent the second largest concentration of both Arabs and Muslims outside the Middle East, behind only Paris.


So far, the development of Dearborn seems like that of any other American city in which there has been a large influx of immigrants. The development of the mosques tells another story.

East and West in Dearborn Mosques

The evolution of Dearborn mosques reflects the ongoing debate since the late 1960s between conservative and liberal elements of American Muslim society. Conservative movements, including Islamic revivalism, can be traced to Middle Eastern influences such as the Iranian Revolution, which parts of Dearborn embraced when the spiritual guide of Hizbollah, Sheikh Mohammed Fadlallah, spoke to an enthusiastic audience of Shi’a refugees in neighboring Southfield’s Bonnie Brook Country Club. More religious than political in appeal, Islamic revivalism tries to stem the tide of integration into non-Islamic American society. Liberal movements descend both from the secular pan-Arabic movement pioneered by former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel-Nasser–Nasserism–and from American influences such as the Civil Rights Movement. Liberals work to construct a distinct Arab American identity and incorporate it into mainstream American life.


It wouldn’t be hard to imagine what would happen if a Christian pastor or priest made the attempt about which you are to read. In fact, they have, but were evicted by the law and their efforts to change the tone of the congregation was nullified.

Dearborn Mosque–the second mosque ever built in the nation–was gradually raised on Southend’s Dix Road between the 1930s and 1950s. In 1976, it saw the conflict between Americanizing and Arabizing ideologies come to a head when Palestinian-born Hajj Fawzi, leading a group of Yemeni and Palestinian immigrants called the musalee’een, broke into the mosque one Friday when it was closed for prayer and occupied it. Later, they wrested legal control of the mosque, through board elections and litigation, and invited to the imamate a young Yemeni sheikh of the conservative Wahhabist tradition. The new imam banned a women’s group from the mosque when they protested his prohibition of weddings and fundraising events from the mosque’s basement. And he required women who wished to attend the mosque to enter through a side door, don hijab, and keep to certain areas of the mosque.

The sheikh’s tenure was short–he was forced to resign and return to Yemen after molesting a twelve-year old girl–but the Yemeni and conservative takeover of the mosque was complete.
With time it has come to reflect the Yemeni Zaydi sect of Sunni Islam and has become known as the Yemeni Zaydi Dearborn Mosque. Only Arabic has been spoken there in the past twenty years. In the early 1980s, the musalee’een began to broadcast the daily calls to prayer over loudspeakers, to the annoyance of some Southend residents. The city of Dearborn attempted to end the broadcasts but was prevented when the courts ruled that the broadcasts constituted the Muslim equivalent of church bells.


In other words the sheikh’s short tenure was enough to affect a change toward extremisim.

More liberal observers of Islam founded their own places of worship. In the 1960s, the most significant of Dearborn’s–and the nation’s–mosques was founded by the highly educated, English-speaking Lebanese Imam Mohamed Chirri. Invited by a group of Dearborn Muslims to serve as the imam of a new place of worship, Chirri began fundraising for a mosque on Joy Road, several blocks across the Detroit border from East Dearborn. Imam Chirri, having befriended one of Nasser’s acquaintances in Lebanon, raised $44,000 from Nasser himself, $7,000 from Jordan, and sizable amounts from the local community.

Imam Chirri’s support for the Americanization of the Islamic community was so pronounced in the 1950s and ‘60s that the imam often appeared in public wearing a business suit and no turban. At the mosque he founded, the Islamic Center for America, or the Jami’, English and Arabic were used equally, and Sunday services for a time became the principal services of the week, drawing whole families as well as men.


An Attempted Moderating Ideology Is A Failure

Imam Chirri sought to construct the Jami’, as an ideologically broad church, and served well as statesman both in responding to pressures from his more conservative constituencies as well as in casting a favorable public image of his religion in America. He was always grateful to Nasser for financial support, defending him publicly when Nasserism had waned as a popular Arab ideology. Initially distancing himself from the Palestinian cause–early on, he counseled Palestinian activists to resign themselves to the reality of Israeli’s statehood and the need for a two-state solution–as his mosque filled with Lebanese refugees, Chirri became publicly opposed to Israel.

In response to the conservative desires of recent immigrants, some changes have taken place–hijab is now common practice, where it had not been before, and the use of the Center for wedding dances and other communal celebrations, common until the 1960s, has ceased. Some Americanized Muslims in Dearborn feel that the arrival of more conservative immigrants has diverted the earlier project of creating an Islamic community that was at once truly Islamic and American.


Look who has caught a U.S. president’s ear!

Imam Chirri died in 1994 and was succeeded by Imam Sayed Hassan Qazwini. Both attained positions of national prominence as the day’s most visible imam during their tenures; Qazwini occasionally serves as an informal consultant to the White House on American Muslim issues. And on a more local level, Qazwini has undertaken projects of unprecedented scale in the community, including a new $15 million complex near the two college campuses on Ford Road and a Muslim American Youth Academy with 170 day students, from kindergarten through sixth grade.

Chirri’s project to balance the left and right of Dearborn’s Muslim populace did not go uncontested. Rejecting the centrism and Americanization of the Islamic Center, several more conservative mosques were founded in Dearborn in the 1980s. Most recently, the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center opened in 1993 as a community center for Iraqi Shi’a refugees. The center lies in a 6,000 square-foot hall on Warren Avenue that had earlier housed a nightclub–Club Gay Haven.


A successful outreach and social services program called ACCESS “emerged when a group of young, second generation Arab Americans, influenced by the war in Vietnam and by contact with the Black Panthers,came together to become more politically involved with the local Arab community. Over decades, ACCESS has been expanded to include health care, literacy programs, English lessons, bureaucracy navigation, employment counseling, a newspaper, the Arab American News (or Al-Watan), Arabic-language programming on public-access cable, and a highly active American Arab Chamber of Commerce. Some village communities have formal institutions as “There’s not one Arab organization that the entire Arab American community embraces.”

The School Board Has Been Re-Focused

Starting in February 2001, Dearborn Public Schools began accepting proposals from halal food distributors to provide food to its 28 public schools. Halal foods are those that are ritually acceptable to Muslims. Bob Cipriano, the district’s business manager told the New York Times, “The whole point is to give foods they can eat, so they’re nourished and can function in the classroom.” Eight years earlier, Dearborn schools banned pork from their lunches to accommodate Muslim dietary guidelines.


This is well and good, but what who looks out for non-Muslim students that are forced to submit to NEW accommodations that are being made to a religious group that is being educated at taxpayer expense in a public school? Isn’t this a violation of the separation of church and state? Would a Muslim country make such accommodations for non-Muslim students attending a state-supported school?

The then “white” mayor was criticized for “failing to knit together the growing Arab, the declining Italian American, and other white ethnic communities” as they have no organizations in common-civic, religious, or otherwise.

Is this a racial issue or a religious and ethnic issue? Some Arabs and Lebanese are Caucasian? Perhaps race is an issue because race is a hot-button item that rallies Leftist organizations such as the ACLU to a cause. Of course we all realize that Islam is not a race and that playing the race card is nothing but an attempt to inflame a situation.

White elected officials, with the exception of the school board officials already noted, boast of their “good ties” to the Arab community while complaining off the record of its growing influence within the city. While Dearborn’s white residents brag about how well their city weathered the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Arabs are quicker to remember the broken storefront windows, the threatening 2 a.m. telephone calls, and insulting highway graffiti. They also remember Abed Hammoud’s sudden setback on September 11, the day of Dearborn’s mayoral primary. Arab Americans feared leaving their homes to go to the polls while whites made an abrupt decision to vote for Dearborn’s Italian American candidate.


Many American cities have non-Caucasion mayors, today a non-issue, why then would this be a racial problem in Dearborn?

Yet Hammoud also worries about the inevitable ramifications that will ensue the election of an Arab mayor. Unprepared for this eventuality and without a groundwork of cross-communal understanding, the white community will flee the city to further removed white enclaves–a new brand of white flight for the 21st century. Ideally white society will grow to incorporate the growing Muslim community in their midst, just as most of Dearborn’s Muslims continue to shift focus from their countries of birth towards a distinctly Arab, but very much American, civil society in their new home–an assimilated political stance directed not towards Lebanon but to Dearborn city hall, Lansing, and Washington.


Why would the non-Muslims of Dearborn “flee the city?” Race isn’t the issue, the issue is the forced accommodation to Muslim customs. Earlier in the 20th Century, Muslims attempted to moderate and integrate, but the effort was sabotaged by extremist elements. As Dearborn goes, so goes the Muslim communities in the rest of the United States.

Read the rest.

Parental Authority Takes Another Hit -- in the Non-Muslim Community.

The Washington State Supreme Court has recently ruled that parents may not eaves drop on their children as “children have the right of privacy.” The ACLU continues to interfere with parental authority, advocating not only a more stringent privacy policy than adults have at work, but the right of children to contraception and abortions, and “by default, the right to have sex without their parents’ consent or knowledge.”

Parents are forced to feed, clothe, and house their children, and in some states are held liable if these same children don’t attend school, commit crimes, or, if children are born out of wedlock, are financially liable for their children’s offspring. Yet parents are restricted as to how they can prevent their children from committing the offenses for which they are liable. In other words, parents’ hands are being tied by design.

The problem isn’t confined to the United States. The Ideal created to protect the world’s children from “poverty, violent conflict and disease, such as AIDS in the Third World has been used as the impetus to selectively target what progressives see as violations against children in the West. Children’s Bills have passed all over Europe that safeguard children from strict parental discipline. Recently Canada parents and teachers can be charged for assault if they spank their children. Parents that spank their children are characterized as child beaters and all suspected of further abuses.

A lack of discipline options that are available for school teachers that are an extension of parental authority is also a growing problem. School boards, fearful of lawsuits from the ACLU and certain parents, have reduced the kinds of interventions that schools may take to correct incorrigible students, even with parental approval. Disrespect for authority is rampant in schools that can do little beyond temporarily removing students from the classroom. Parental authority and teacher authority nationwide will only be further eroded by the Washington State ruling as the ACLU will now use this precedent-setting case to attack in other states for the same result.

No one is advocating the extreme measures that some parents use to restrain and discipline their children. Granted, parents have been known to shut their children away, tie them to the bedpost, drug, beat, and severely injure their children, all in the name of discipline. The liberal West is moving away from these measures and we can understand why laws must be written to protect some children from their parents.

The law should not be used to rescind parental and teacher authority over the children for which they are held accountable by taking the teeth out of discipline, or even parental inquiry into their children’s behavior as the Washington State ruling has done.

And are all residents of the West abandoning strict parental discipline? Certainly the Muslim community is not. Muslim parents continue with impunity to “violate the rights of their children” and the entire community aids them in the law breaking by remaining silent or actively assisting parents to avoid detection or to prevent their children, especially daughters from absorbing the mores of Western society.

Will Washington State Muslim adhere to the State Supreme Court’s decision to respect children’s privacy? What will happen if they don’t? Will the ACLU file charges against these parents or does the ACLU have a double standard for Western and Muslim parents?

What does the ACLU expect to happen to America after parents and teachers are now longer able to control children? Children will run wild and many of them will lead desperate and unhappy lives because of ACLU meddling.

Is there a sinister design behind all this meddling? The Left has vowed to create a socialist state in America. The Bolsheviks, Hitler, and other tyrants used the state to wrest parental authority in order to create a new order. European socialism has interfered with the home in order to create their vision of a liberal society. Progressives in America hope to do the same and are using the Courts as the means of conversion.

The non-Muslim West is sliding into an abyss of moral decay. We are being weakened and set up for the inevitable return swing of the pendulum that occurs when a culture decides it has gone too far in one direction.

Who or what will fill the moral and spiritual void? Islam and Muslims are waiting patiently in the wings. Muslim parents will not permit their children to join the hedonistic party and the Courts have overlooked their law-breaking refusal on the grounds of “religious and cultural differences.”

The ACLU and the Left seem to have entered into an unholy alliance with American Muslims to create a Muslim nation in America.The transformation might be positive IF Islam were a benign religion. Instead we know from the historical record and from present world events that a Muslim invasion, whether it is by sword or by demographics will not be positive for non-Muslims.


How to Debate a Muslim, Part III

The final installment from Ibn Warraq giving us another rhetorical tool. A caution: These are meant as debate tools here in the West. Any attempt to use them in a Muslim country could result in jailing or death. Muslims consider criticism or even the questioning of Islam to be disrespectful and blasphemy, both "crimes against Islam." Muslims in the West probably won't be willing to debate or even discuss, but at least YOU won't be shut down.

The final installment.

3. Go to the Original Sources.

When you do debate with a Muslim make sure you are armed with all your references from the original Arabic sources. The major sources are all available in English, and are the Koran, the Sira or the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and the Hadith, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions. You must make the effort to familiarize yourself with these. Start with the Koran. It is not a very long text, about four hundred pages in the Penguin translation. Acquire at least four different translations, at least one of which should be by a Muslim. Yusuf Ali and, despite his name, Marmaduke Pickthall were Muslims, and their translations are easily available in paperbacks. At least one should be by someone whose mother tongue was Arabic, such as N.J.Dawood, an Iraqi scholar whose translation is quite readable. If you read French, I strongly advise you to acquire and read Regis Blachere’s translation - it has copious footnotes which reveal the opaqueness of the Holy text, and the grammatical errors of the original Arabic.


If you have read the Koran, you are already better informed of its contents than the majority of Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have been genuinely surprised when I have apprised them of the verses preaching war, intolerance, hatred of Jews and Christians, misogyny, cruel punishments, etc. When you do read the Koran, read it with a highlighter in hand, and mark or underline the passages which preach intolerance, or which reveal injustice, cruelty and violence, absurdities, insults to women, contradictions, anti-Semitism, homophobic attitudes, superstitions, and, to be scrupulously fair, passages which teach morally acceptable principles. Someone has already undertaken just such a task at:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html. Our diligent skeptic found 511 passages of injustice, 384 of intolerance, 320 of cruelty and violence, 46 insults to women and just 60 passages of morally acceptable principles.


Here are some anti-Jewish sentiments from the Koran:


II.61: ….Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them (that is, the Jews), and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.


IV.44-46: Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path.
But Allah knows best who your enemies are, and it is sufficient to have Allah as a friend. It is sufficient to have Allah as a helper.
Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say, ‘We hear and we disobey’, and ‘Hear without hearing,’ and ‘Heed us!’ twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said, ‘We have heard and obey,’, or ‘Hear and observe us’ it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah had cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.


IV.160-161: And for the evildoing of the Jews, We have forbidden them some good things that were previously permitted them, and because of their barring many from Allah’s way.
And for their taking usury which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people’s wealth under false pretense. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them a painful punishment.


IX.29-31: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute [poll-tax] readily, and are utterly subdued.
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Those are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are!
They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and so too the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to serve but one God. There is no God but He. Allah is exalted above that which they deify beside Him.


IX.34: O you who believe ! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom


V.63-64: Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and devouring of illicit gain? Verily evil is their handiwork.
The Jews say, “Allah’s hands are fettered.” Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said! On the contrary, His hands are spread open. He bestows as He wills. That which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the arrogance and unbelief of many among them. We have cast enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they light the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They hasten to spread corruption throughout the earth, but Allah does not love corrupters!


V.70-71: We made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them. But whenever an apostle came to them with a message that did not suit their fancies, some they accused of lying and others they put to death. They thought no harm would follow: they were blind and deaf. God is ever watching their actions.


V.82: Indeed, you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists.


V.51: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them.


V.57: O you who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] before you, and of the disbelievers, as make jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah of you are true believers.


V.59: Say: O, People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do you blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evildoers?


V.66: ….Among them [Jews and Christians] there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.


XXXIII.26: He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book [Jews of Bani Qurayza ] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive.


V.60: Say:‘ Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God ? Those whom [i.e. Jews] God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path.’


Then pass onto the oldest source on the life of the Prophet, the Sira by Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham. It is also available in an English translation. Again read it, with the same skeptical attitude and a highlighter in hand. It makes for very depressing reading. The biography is full of violence, cruelty, intolerance and anti-Semitism.
Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammad’s hatred of the Jews :


1. “Kill any Jews that falls into your power” said the Prophet: p.369
2. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.369
3. The killing of Sallam ibn Abu’l –Huqayq: pp.482-483
4. The assassination of Ka‘b b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-369
5. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banu‘l-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-445
6. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-469
7. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666

Finally, pass onto the Hadith or Traditions, which are also, fortunately, available in English. The collection by Bukhari, who died in 870 C.E., is the best place to start. The Hadith or the Books of Tradition are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses. Apart from what Muhammad did and enjoined these traditions include what was done in his presence that he did not forbid, and even the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of the Prophet. These traditions serve as the theoretical basis of the Sharia or Islamic Law, and hence of Islam itself. Here you will find all that you suspected about Islam but were not sure where to look for. Jihad, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the usual litany of violence and cruelty. Bukhari’s collection is highly regarded by the Muslims.


Thus furnished with precise references to and quotes from the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, you are well-equipped to criticise Islam, and ready to debate any Muslim.

Hattip: Jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch

Friday, December 10, 2004

The Ents of Europe - Hanson's Take on Tolkien's Vision

One of the many wondrous peoples that poured forth from the rich imagination of the late J. R. R. Tolkien were the Ents. These tree-like creatures, agonizingly slow and covered with mossy bark, nursed themselves on tales of past glory while their numbers dwindled in their isolation. Unable to reproduce themselves or to fathom the evil outside their peaceful forest — and careful to keep to themselves and avoid reacting to provocation of the tree-cutters and forest burners — they assumed they would be given a pass from the upheavals of Middle Earth.


For Tolkien, who wrote in a post-imperial Britain bled white from stopping Prussian militarism and Hitler's Nazism, only to then witness the rise of the more numerous, wealthier, and crasser Americans, such specters were haunting. Indeed, there are variants of the Ent theme throughout Tolkien's novels, from the dormant Riders of Rohan — whose king was exorcised from his dotage and rallied the realm's dwindling cavalry to recover lost glory and save the West — to the hobbits themselves.


The latter, protected by slurred "Rangers," live blissfully unaware that radical changes in the world have brought evil incarnate to their very doorstep. Then to their amazement they discover that of all people, a hobbit rises to the occasion, and really does stand up well when confronted with apparently far more powerful and evil adversaries. The entire novel is full of such folk — the oath-breaking Dead who come alive to honor their once-broken pact, or the now-fallen and impotent High Elves who nevertheless do their part in the inevitable war to come.


Tolkien always denied an allegorical motif or any allusions to the contemporary dangers of appeasement or the leveling effects of modernism. And scholars bicker over whether he was lamenting the end of the old England, old Europe, or the old West — in the face of the American democratic colossus, the Soviet Union's tentacles, or the un-chivalrous age of the bomb. But the notion of decline, past glory, and 11th-hour reawakening are nevertheless everywhere in the English philologist's Lord of the Rings. Was he on to something?


More specifically, does the Ents analogy work for present-day Europe? Before you laugh at the silly comparison, remember that the Western military tradition is European. Today the continent is unarmed and weak, but deep within its collective mind and spirit still reside the ability to field technologically sophisticated and highly disciplined forces — if it were ever to really feel threatened. One murder began to arouse the Dutch; what would 3,000 dead and a toppled Eiffel Tower do to the French? Or how would the Italians take to a plane stuck into the dome of St. Peter? We are nursed now on the spectacle of Iranian mullahs, with their bought weapons and foreign-produced oil wealth, humiliating a convoy of European delegates begging and cajoling them not to make bombs — or at least to point what bombs they make at Israel and not at Berlin or Paris. But it was not always the case, and may not always be.


The Netherlands was a litmus test for Europe. Unlike Spain or Greece, which had historical grievances against Islam, the Dutch were the avatars of the new liberal Europe, without historical baggage. They were eager to unshackle Europe from the Church, from its class and gender constraints, and from any whiff of its racist or colonialist past. True, for a variety of reasons, Amsterdam may be a case study of how wrong Rousseau was about natural man, but for a Muslim immigrant the country was about as hospitable a foreign host as one can imagine. Thus, it was far safer for radical Islamic fascists to damn the West openly from a mosque in Rotterdam than for a moderate Christian to quietly worship in a church in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Algeria. And yet we learn not just that the Netherlands has fostered a radical sect of Muslims who will kill and bomb, but, far more importantly, that they will do so after years of residency among, and indeed in utter contempt of, their Western hosts.


Things are no less humiliating — or dangerous — in France. Thousands of unassimilated Muslims mock French society. Yet their fury shapes its foreign policy to the degree that Jacques Chirac sent a government plane to sweep up a dying Arafat. But then what do we expect from a country that enriched Hamas, let Mrs. Arafat spend her husband's embezzled millions under its nose, gave Khomeini the sanctuary needed to destroy Iran, sold a nuclear reactor to Saddam, is at the heart of the Oil-for-Food scandal, and revs up the Muslim world against the United States?


Only now are Europeans discovering the disturbing nature of radical Islamic extremism, which thrives not on real grievance but on perceived hurts — and the appeasement of its purported oppressors. How odd that tens of millions of Muslims flocked to Europe for its material consumption, superior standard of living, and freedom and tolerance — and then chose not merely to remain in enclaves but to romanticize all the old pathologies that they had fled from in the first place. It is almost as if the killers in Amsterdam said, "I want your cell phones, unfettered Internet access, and free-spirited girls, but hate the very system that alone can create them all. So please let me stay here to destroy what I want."

Read the Rest

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam

Does this sound like human rights for all mankind? Does this account for the behavior of Arab Muslims at Darfur or a ban on the total annihilation of all humanity? This calls for human dignity under Islam alone.

Here is the opening paragraph of the CDHR:
"Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization." Written in 1990, this is not an ancient text that can be brushed off as a past attitude or excess.

The last 2 articles of the CDHR pretty much tell you what you're dealing with here:

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

The reference to Shari'ah makes my blood run cold. Human rights under this declaration are for Muslims only. The rest of us are excluded second class, less than human, fit for slavery, exploitation, or death.

How to Debate a Muslim, Part II

Muslims continue to shut down debate using techniques developed over the centuries. Fair-minded Westerners are often silenced when a Muslim uses the technique "Out of context," claiming that the non-Muslim is misquoting a scholar, or taking Koranic passages, information from ahadith or Sira "out of context."

We can never have too many rhetorical weapons as counter to these stratgies and techniques.

The fearless and erudite ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq today continues his evisceration of common apologetic feints used by Islamic and jihadist apologists today with a discussion of the "You are quoting that verse out of context" defense.

Out of context

Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.

Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:

Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.

For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.

Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!

Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.

The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:

Sura IV.34:”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”

This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:

Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”

If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly “in brackets after “beat “even though there is no “lightly “in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.

Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre.
Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that “make war “in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.

First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.” (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.

The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:

IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God ’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.
IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.

The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.”

As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 –35:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
“The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….
“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it
“O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”

The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.

Hattip: Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch

U.N. Uses Ottoman Tolerance Concept as Model

Historical revisionism and gullibility are at work at the U.N. that wants us to accept tolerance as demonstrated in the Ottoman Empire as our standard today. Discrimination against and harassment of non-Muslims is the record of majority Muslim societies from the very beginning and the Ottoman Empire is no exception. In fact Islamic empires have several "holocausts" for which they can be held accountable. The Armenian Genocide is a twentieth century example that is at least mentioned in Western textbooks. Few texts mention the the invasion of India beginning in the year 1000. Islamic expansion has always been a bloody affair and the conquered are always given the option of conversion, death, or second-class citizenship, dhimmitude. This is the famous "Muslim tolerance."

The Ottoman Empire spread in all directions. Going north it went through the Balkans leaving us with the present continued conflict between Serbs and Albanian Muslims. Many cultures that nationalized into countries had to suffer under Ottoman rule: Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, and Romania. The Ottoman Empire came to an end in 1924 with abolishment by Ataturk who created modern Turkey.

Why does the U.N. put forward this fantastic whitewash of Ottoman tolerance “as a model for present-day behavior?” Islamic law is clear as it mandates second-class status and institutional humiliation of Christians and Jews.

A report to the UN by John Esposito points out that hate crimes abound against even “moderate” Muslims, but he considers “the suicide-attack-endorsing jihadist Qaradawi a "moderate."

Meanwhile, the question remains: Why is the U.N., a body of highly educated diplomats and their aids willing to accept this white-washed version of the Ottoman Empire’s treatment of non-Muslims?

JihadWatch puts forth commentary and about this disturbing report.

Links:
Esposito, John L., Practice and Theory. A response to “Islam and the Challenge of Democracy” http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.2/esposito.html

UN Uses Ottoman Tolerance Concept as Model. http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&hn=14589

Boston, Andrew. A Wahhabism Problem. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bostom120602.asp

The U.N. Plans to Expand...Under Protest!

The U.N. was a vision of hope for a world that had gone through two horrific wars within thirty years, a place where diplomats could come together for discussions that would avert war.

The grand vision of the U.N. has devolved. Instead of being a place of hope for world peace and discussion this body is a “nest of Islamists,” replete with scandal, accused of bribery, sexual harassment and battery, bribery, kickbacks, and a host of other criminal activities performed under diplomatic immunity. Armed servicemen wearing the blue helmet of the U.N. dispatched as peacekeepers have committed rapes and atrocities. U.N. monies meant for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes have allegedly been paid to dictators.

All these and other allegations are being investigated by an “independent investigator,” Paul Volker, who has complained that the U.N. has not been forthcoming with documents or cooperation.

Now calls are coming to severely cut back funding to the U.N. and for the U.S. to either withhold funds or completely pull out.

For what purpose, then, is the U.N.’s
planned expansion
in New York?

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Why the Right Never Wins Over the Left in the Long Run

Ross Mackenzie: Needed: A renewed sense of service and sacrifice, townhall.com, November 18, 2004


Ross MacKenzie wrote recently: "Herewith some key policy recommendations for the second Bush administration now forming up - with emphasis on a biggie. . . ."

The title tipped me off that the Achilles' heel of the Right was about to be re-exposed, in the form of his "biggie," and sure enough, he belched a big one:

With the nation in by all accounts a protracted World War IV against jihadist terrorism, what is lacking is any sense of sacrifice. These days post-9/11 flags are broadly absent on cars and front porches; undermining any determination to win the war, the administration has told us repeatedly to go about our business as though little had changed.

But much has changed. We require a renewed sense of service and sacrifice. We also require a populace fully appreciative of the importance of the military, and knowing full well where additional manpower will come from should the need arise. The way to accomplish all that is through a new program of compulsory universal service with a front-end military component - one year, no exceptions. Now.


I know the following is a shameless plug, but I offer an explanation of why the Right wins only battles and never the war against the Left, and fights only holding actions with small, but steady, retreats: See Exposing the America's Fifth Column: Nazism, Communism, and Islam.

The Left has been extolling an ethics of self-sacrifice ever since Immanuel Kant secularized this religious concept in the 18th century. Don't be bamboozled by "sacrifice," either. It is not a good word. It means giving up something of greater value for something of lesser value, which is why "sacrifice" always "hurts." To the Left, this sacrifice is so good that anyone not sacrificing voluntarily must be physically forced, even killed, in order to achieve the needed self-sacrifice. And, if someone is sacrificing, there must be someone to collect the sacrifices. To viz and to wit, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all of Islam, and scads of others.

Well, you really can't fight something if you believe in it deep down.

The Right believes in the ethics of self-sacrifice fully as much as the Left. The Right gets it from religion; the Left gets it from the secular. It really doesn't matter where it comes from because it is all the same. It is the very fuel of totalitarianism and all of its progenitors.

When Ross MacKenzie extols a need for sacrifice, he makes bed with the darkest of Nazis or Communists, and I'll bet he would be horrified to know that. For MacKenzie, the sacrifice comes from the youth who must be forced into servitude for some self-sacrificial goal of national service. Hitler said the same thing, as did Stalin, etc.

Does MacKenzie mean some good variant? He probably does not know what he means. He writes in Conservative-Speak, his own version of "feel good." But, I know what he means.

Do you recall the other name for involuntary servitude? It is SLAVERY. Establish the principle through national service or the draft, and it will spread if it is not stamped out. It cannot be contained.

So here is the Right sadly and maddeningly pairing off with the Left, to the same ends. The Left has been much more consistent, and they have been winning as a result. The Right mumbles and shuffles and tries to make it seem like they do not mean the same thing., but they do. Words and concepts mean things.

This is a major reason why America continues to perish by default. The ideology of the Left has long been dead as a crusade. We are adrift and pursuing the ideology of the Left by passive default. The Right tries to resist but never succeeds because it will not pick up the right weapons. As a result, it is only slowing the passive descent, now and then.

The opposite of self-sacrificial ethics is an ethics of egoism. Yes, indeed, I mean rational self-interest. Note the use of "rational." Religionists and post-Kantians have convinced many people that selfishness means the barbarity of Hitlers, etc. No, that is not what rational self-interest means, but it is what narcissism means.

Make the distinction, and reclaim the right to your ego, if you want to remain free.

U.S. Under Attack. Unaccountable U.N. Bureaucrats Are Out to Get Us…Again!

In spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, the Kyoto Club, a group of 129 nations that believe that global warming is caused primarily by human activity is putting the screws to the U.S. to force us to sign the protocol and live under the thumb of international law.

… The overwhelming sentiment among the participants is to find a way to force the United States to "get on board." French Ecology Minister Serge Lepeltier said, "I am convinced that we are going to bring the United States into Kyoto, even if it doesn't want to."

Speech after speech lambasted the "cold-hearted" Bush administration for not "joining the Kyoto Club." U.S. Representative, Harlan Watson, was ridiculed by the Climate Action Network when he tried to modify the agenda to reflect "climate variability," rather than "climate change."

The Kyoto Protocol becomes international law on February 16, 2005, 90 days after it was ratified by Russia. The U.S. and Australia are the only major developed nations that have not ratified the Protocol.


Giving in to this pressure would put us at risk as nations great and small, friend and foe, would have a say in everything we do here in the United States.

Nevertheless, the Kyoto Protocol itself is flawed because it “ignores the fact that a thousand years ago, the global temperature was at least two degrees (C) above current levels, during a period that science refers to as the “Medieval Climate Optimum.” Greenland was actually green during this period.”

Attempts have been made to obscure the record that is based on undisputed scientific facts. Advocates of the Kyoto Club simply “ignore the record” and, instead, “rely on computer models which can only predict from the data they are fed.” (Isn’t that obvious!) “When the same computer models are fed the known data from the last century, they fail to accurately project the known climate pattern.”

However, now the Kyoto Club has the power of international law and it doe not have to answer questions; “it simply issues decrees and declarations, creates regulations, and penalizes the non-compliant.”

Already, the participants at COP 10 are dreaming of ways to penalize the United States, to force the U.S. to join the international global warming club. Cathie Adams, President of Texas Eagle Forum, who is attending the gathering, reports that the World Trade Organization is seen to be the enforcer of choice. Floy Lilley, vice chair of Sovereignty International, who is also attending the conference, reports that the delegates and the NGO representatives have declared that climate change is at "least as great a threat as terrorism."


How will this penalty work against the U.S.?

The Protocol enforcers, through the several wealth-redistribution schemes embodied in the Protocol, will penalize U.S. industry, artificially increase the cost of energy in non-compliant nations, and roll out the red carpet for U.S. industries to move to developing nations.

Sadly, if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented, with every nation, including the U.S., meeting their Kyoto emission reduction targets, it would have zero impact on global climate. Reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide would be not be detectible, even if the five-percent reduction below 1990 levels could be achieved.

Of course the target of 5% reduction cannot be achieved by 2008-2012 as the Protocol demands. This is ONLY THE FIRST STEP in the Kyoto program that is “designed to keep adding new and stiffer reduction targets until fossil fuel is completely eliminated. Industrialized countries are given a heavier burden than developing countries and the “economic impact this horrendous international law could have is beyond comprehension.”


“The only thing worse--is the knowledge that the power of this international law is in the hands of a bunch of unaccountable U.N. bureaucrats whose goal is to bring down the United States.”


1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew?



Have you ever run across a Muslim or Muslim apologist that has an answer or rejoinder that shuts you down when attempting to debate, critique, or even discuss Islam? It’s plain annoying. But the truth is that Muslims have developed strategies over hundreds of years on how to that very thing: shut down the critical debate or discussion of Islam.

Ibn Warraq has come up with some facts about Islam that should help us in our next encounter. His first helpful topic is about Muslims and Arabic. People don’t know that most Muslims aren’t Arab and don’t speak or read Arabic: they have only memorized and repeat prayers and passages by rote. Thus, the claim that non-Muslims cannot participate in a critical debate about Islam is disingenuous, similar to a claim that non-Christians or non-Jews can’t discuss those religions because they don’t read Hebrew, Aramaic, or even Greek, the languages in which the ancient texts were written. Most Christians and Jews don’t possess the ability to read holy text in these ancient languages, and as do most Muslims, we read them in translation.

Here Warraq:

Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice.

However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word.

In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities.[1]

Even for contemporary Arabic –speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4]

Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7]

As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called ‘mixed’ language or ‘Inter-Arabic’ being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8]

Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11]

The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran.

You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.

hattip: JihadWatch

The Idiocy of Our Immigration Non-Policies and Non-Enforcement



It keeps getting worse. We are more at risk because the immigration policies of the U.S. don’t reflect the present world situation. In the past cheap labor coming over the southern border was welcomed as the borders haven’t been thoroughly reinforced and patrolled in decades, or if ever.

But the world situation has changed and politicos are making a stab at immigration reform while immigrant groups and fifth columnists are agitating to prevent reform, border reinforcement, and increased patrols along either border.

Drug smugglers, contraband, and other criminal activity as well as human trafficking for the sex industry, contract labor, and traffic for other migratory purposes are streaming over in torrents. No one can know exactly who is coming in and what they are bringing, an example of the idiocy of our immigration non-policies!

Arizona seems to be a prime point for illegal entry. Smugglers are bringing in goods and people to be taken to urban areas, but they just as well be smuggling in goods, people, and arms to be distributed among the caves and canyons of the U.S. Southwest as an armory or staging ground for invasion.

Illegal immigration has pretty much trashed many parts of the South West. The cost to environment is un-reparable and the dollar losses due to damage to water systems, fences, salaries, and security is mounting.

Some groups put the blame on the government for attempting to prevent migration and others for not making a definitive stop to illegal migration. Either way, we are not safe under the present circumstances.

Groups that propose open migration are putting us at risk because anyone can get in. Those that apply the present law haphazardly are also guilty of creating the same unacceptable risk.

Read about the situation in Arizona for an eye-opener.

From the Ridiculous to the Absurd: Dickens is “too religious” for public school



Everyday I read about the mounting mania of those that are determined to remove any vestige of Christianity and Judaism from the public schools and public square. Although the Constitution of the United States does not forbid religion in school or the public arena, highly educated people have been mesmerized by some evil force into believing that the Constitution has made this mandate that religion should be exiled to the privacy of the home and church. If this were so, long ago the Supreme Court would have made such a ruling.

From the east to west we are being barraged by news of officials, frightened by lawsuits or controversy that are stripping our culture of literature, music, art, anything that might have a reference of any kind to the religious background on which our culture is based.

At Lake Washington High School near Seattle they are banning Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” because this might offend or seem to be “an emphasis on a particular religion.”

Recently in Cupertino, California, the Constitution and other American documents were under attack by the principal of that school because the teacher was emphasizing the religious content. Well, the religious content is in there because the authors and the framers made the decision to base the documents on the enlightenment and on religion. Fortunately they didn’t have to contend with the U.S. court system or the ACLU when they made their choice.

Your tax dollars at work in the land of highly-educated petty bureaucrats: what a dangerous lot of idiots helped along by fifth columnists from among the Left and the Islamists, of course. Could it be that Islam is to fill the void after Christianity and Judaism have been fully banned?

I can’t wait to see which cultural icon is next to be banned. Can you?

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Islamists and Incarceration: Prisons Prove to be Prime Recruiting Grounds



A Truism – prisons are school of crime, and for the Jihad, they are a recruiting ground for future terrorists. As for other criminal, incarceration is not stigma; it is a place of honor where networking and planning can be done, where one comes into contact with peers of the same persuasions and agendas.

For many criminals the prison is a parallel society that exists only partly within the prison walls as relationships that are formed outside are brought in and out in the revolving prison door of repeat offenders. Apparently the same concept holds true whether the prison is in the U.S. or in far away Pakistan where Jihadists previously incarcerated are now able to kill and commit other crimes as they have been freed from prisons with more skills and connection than they had before they went in.

Islamists and Incarceration is chilling, a reminder that the U.S. prisons are also a breeding ground for home-grown terrorists that are being indoctrinated both by visiting imams and other prisoners in Islam and in criminal procedures. An army that could be released on America and other Western countries is being created at taxpayers’ expense – and no one seems to know to stop this procedure and what to do with those already indoctrinated.

In the restive Pakistani province of South Waziristan an Islamist by the name of Abdullah Mehsud commands an estimated 200 fighters. On October 14 Mehsud masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers working on a dam project for a state-run Chinese company and were taken to a mud hut in the Chagmalai area of the province. From the hut, the kidnappers negotiated with Pakistani forces while receiving telephone instructions from Mehsud. The negotiations ended with a Pakistani assault on the hut during which one of the Chinese hostages was killed. Pakistani forces immediately set out to capture Mehsud, previously unknown to the Pakistani government. The name Abdullah Mehsud, however, did ring a bell halfway around the world at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where Mehsud had been an inmate until March 2004.

Elsewhere, halfway between Pakistan and Cuba, in Denmark, a man named Silmane Haj Abd al-Rahmane told Danish national television on September 26 that he considered Danish soldiers and government officials legitimate targets for terrorist attacks. Abd al-Rahmane also said he plans to travel to Chechnya and join the jihad there. Abd al-Rahmane had also been a detainee at Guantanamo and was released to Danish authorities in the beginning of 2004. When asked about the contract he had signed before being released from Guantanamo in which he had committed to refrain from terrorist activities, Abd al-Rahmane answered: “They can use that contract as toilet paper over in the United States”. This kind of rhetoric is not only heard from freed prisoners living in western democracies.

Shortly before a prisoner exchange between Afghanistan and Pakistan, on September 12, Umara Khan, a Pakistani national who had been jailed in Afghanistan after he had been captured while fighting for the Taliban told a reporter: “I am proud of my decision. I had come to Afghanistan for jihad and I succeeded. I will go to Iraq and continue my jihad against Americans until I defeat them”. In October, Israel Defense Force soldiers arrested Imad al-Kawasme, commander of Hamas in the city of Hebron. Kawasme orchestrated many terrorist attacks including the August 31 suicide attacks on two buses in Beer Sheba. Al-Kawasme had previously been in an Israeli prison between 1994 and 1999. Islamist militants, wholly committed to their ideology, are not reformed by imprisonment.

The fact that Islamist prisoners are repeat offenders is not that surprising when one understands that they are ideological criminals that base their actions on a utopian ideology. Jihad, in their eyes, will eventually lead to a perfect Islamic world, in which Muslims rule by Islamic law. They strongly believe that their actions in support of jihad are not only religiously justified but are in fact a religious duty.


Read the rest for a chilling eye-opener.

Hattip: JihadWatch

When Should We Forgive?


I admire and respect Chuck Colson. Here’s a man that has gone from political “dirty tricks” during the Nixon administration to create a successful prison outreach program in the U.S. penal system.

Colson was known to be as dirty as they came. Known as a “hatchet man,” he was feared by even the most powerful politicos during his four years of service to President Nixon.

When news of Colson’s conversion to Christianity leaked to the press in 1973, the Boston Globe reported, “If Mr. Colson can repent of his sins, there just has to be hope for everybody.”


In 1974 he entered a plea of guilty to Watergate-related charges; although not implicated in the Watergate burglary, he voluntarily pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Daniel Ellsberg Case, serving seven months of a one-to-three year sentence.

In 1976 he founded Prison Fellowship Ministries which collaborates with “churches of all confessions and denominations, becoming the world’s largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners, crime victims, and their families and has spent the last twenty-five years as head of the ministry.

Through his personal outreach through travel and commentaries, including “BreakPoint,” Colson has proven himself to be a savvy, yet compassionate judge of character and world events. When Colson speaks, many people listen.

As a Google search has demonstrated, he has written extensively about the tension between Islam and Christianity, about the effect of Islam on Europe, on Muslim conversions of non-Muslims in the general public and in prisons, and on many other topics that are not related to Muslims and Islam.

Colson believes that we need to be “informed and discerning about the Islamic worldview” which is utopian.

Seeing the struggle between the Western and the Islamic world in religious terms, Colson concludes in Drawing the Battle Lines, that:

For them, “the best hope for salvation is to eliminate non-Muslim influences and to advance Islam (by force if necessary, for which there are heavenly rewards, as the terrorists believed). The Muslim faces an uncertain outcome on Judgment Day based on his works. Christians are confident of a full pardon because of Christ's work.


and

While Islamists want to enforce a theocracy, most Christians live peacefully with competing value systems. Christians believe in winning people through love, not conquest. Although most Muslims are peace loving, the Qur'an does speak ofjihads.

Why is it important to understand these differences?

First, it is important in evangelizing Muslims, many of whom are disillusioned by the terrorist violence. Second, it is necessary to resist Muslims who are evange'lizing Americans. Muslims, who consider the Trinity blasphemy against Allah, are handing out tracts on college campuses charging that Christians worship three gods. Christians must defend Trinitarian doctrine as well as expose the flaws in Islam's worldview.


And this includes the prison system that is filled with alientated, disenfranchised, angry and dangerous men and women that are easy targets for the message of the Koranic texts that preach vengeance and retribution. Prisoners are taught to hate Christians and Jews and how to get even with the society that they feel has shown them little or no justice.

Once again he believes that evangelizing Muslims or the converts, and the marginalized in and out of prison is the answer. In Evangelizing for Evil in Our Prisons, reiterates how believes the application of Christianity can only help.

Whats the answer? In the short term, prison officials have ample legal authority to deny radical imams access to inmates. No civilized nation would allow the preachers of violence access to places packed with angry, alienated men. Inmates are easy targets. International terrorism analyst Peter Brown told the Washington Times that up to 2,000 American recruits "have shown up in the ranks of al Qaeda in the past decade."

But the long-term answer lies in what ministries like Prison Fellowship do: bringing the Gospel into the prisons and telling inmates about the love of Christ. Ive gone into 600 prisons around the world; when the gospel is preached, and men embrace Christ, they eschew violence. The prisons we run prove it. In Texas, Kansas, Iowa and now Minnesota, our prisons are filled with once-dangerous men who now love Jesus and live new lives.

America has always been a place where victims of oppression came "yearning to breathe free," as the Statue of Liberty reminds us. But if we do not stop them, radical Islamists will use prisons, packed with angry and resentful men, to put an evil twist on this message: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to get even.


Is Colson correct in his analysis? We know that showing respect and kindness towards usually gets a response in kind. But will this behavior work against Islamists that are determined to eliminate the influences of the West, proselytize or eliminate non-Muslims, and create a world Islamic empire?

One-on-one, face to face with many Muslims, respect and kindness will work. But this behavior is seen as weakness, the “paper tiger” syndrome, of which the United States was inflected for decades after Vietnam. While Americans have been trying to overcome this mental block, this syndrome of apathy, skepticism, and negativism against themselves, Muslims and their fifth column friends have been regularly injecting the body American with more of the same poison.

Islamists have taken for granted that the body American will remain sick and impotent, unable to resist the creeping gangrene of Islamism that is coursing through our veins. Colson may be right in one respect. We need prayer, we need a miracle to reverse this trend.

Should we forgive our enemies in this war as we did in the last as Colson has reminded us in Forgiving Our Enemies?

Perhaps, but in the last war our enemies were thoroughly subdued and knew it. We helped rebuild their bombed out cities and their societies, destroyed a monster in Adolph Hitler and the European form of fascism in Germany and Italy. Regrettably and unbelievably it is again returning to Europe in the form of Islamofacism that Europeans actually invited in with their Muslim guest workers and asylum seekers.

Our enemies were thoroughly subdued and allowed freedom to be brought to the masses. Islam declares that Jihad will continue until dhimmis, conquered non-Muslims are subdued and know it. I doubt very much that the Islamists will apply the same principles of freedom and justice that we applied to our conquered former enemies as freedom is anathema to Islamic thinking and justice is the punishment of Allah.

Colson is on the right track for the salvation of Christians, but his remedy won’t help us to defeat the Islamists. God forgive us as we forge ahead, not meekly as lambs, but roaring and ravaging lions bent on carnage and destruction. This is the only way.

The ravaging lions can be construed as a metaphor for the courageous among us that will dare to stand up to these Islamists in our own lands, using the weapons of the courts, the media, and the power of the pen. We cannot forgive while such passion runs high.

Will the Questioners Be Silenced?



A similar theme is running through op-ed articles these days. The writers are noticing that the various influential Muslim organizations and their spokespersons are noticing them and responding with greater vigor. This scrutiny speaks to the success of the questioners that are causing discomfort to the Islamists working within America.

Some questioners are well known. Some of the most well known are: Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Pat Robertson, and Donald Rumsfeld. Others are less well known, those that prefer to make their voices heard as ordinary citizens in letters to the editor, newspaper guest columns, and as on-line posters, some of which post under the own names, while others prefer to remain anonymous. Then of course there are the dozens of books on subjects that are answering questions about Islam and the Islamists.


All of these questioners and authors have one thing in common: they are concerned about the Islamist influence in the United States and the Muslims that are operation with impunity, especially those that have insinuated themselves into positions of authority or those that are positioned to catch the ear of policy makers in the halls of power: in the boardroom, the think tank, the university, the textbook company, the school board, the halls of Congress, the State Department, the Oval Office, and the court system, to name only SOME entities that have been touched and, in some cases, poisoned by the Islamist touch.

Questioners have noticed and speaking more frequently with louder voices. The Islamists have decided that they have to be stopped, discredited, and permanently silenced.

Steven Schwartz is questioning the discrediting of Steve Emerson by MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Why Islamists Hate Steve Emerson, FrontPageMagazine,com., characterizing the group and the convention as “…one of the most adroit and deceptive Islamist groups in America…with participation by some of America’s worst apologists for and adherents to Islamist extremism…” His complaint, though, isn’t about the Islamist agenda of world take over, it’s about how MPAC is planning to target and marginalize the well-known critics of Islamism by comparing them to Osama bin Laden of all people!

Imagine Donald Rumsfeld and Pat Robertson being put in the same category as Osama bin Laden. In their propaganda they are all extremists, and by extension, all that speak against them, great or small, ordinary citizen or an influential, we are all extremists to be discredited and marginalized, even as far up as the President of the United States!

According to Emerson, Steven Schwartz is being targeted because he is:

…an American who understands what Islamism and terrorism are about and who, like Emerson, have uncovered the terrorist networks established in the U.S. For MPAC, whose real agenda is to protect the militant networks, the appropriate tactic is, again, to portray Emerson as the enemy of Islam, when for the last 10 years, Emerson’s work has exclusively involved investigation and exposing terrorist financing, recruitment, and other criminal conspiratorial activities

Emerson, of all the five faces, is targeted more for what he does than what he says, although he speaks frequently on MSNBC as a terrorism expert and he and his staff are quoted frequently in the national and international media. His presence on TV, as much as his content, sticks in the MPAC’s craw, even though Emerson’s investigation, analysis and statements have invariably been devastatingly accurate. Government agencies and congressional leaders have frequently sought Emerson’s input and information because of his vast archives on militant Islamic groups and his key role in laying the groundwork for prosecutions, indictments, asset forfeitures, and major media investigations.


So we can see why MPAC and other Islamists would find Emerson dangerous to their cause. His marginalization would be a definite boon for the Islamaist movement in the United States.

Emerson has done more than any other individual to expose these dangers to the safety of our country and of the majority of law-abiding American Muslims. For this, he is targeted for obloquy, and, in fact, for barely-concealed threats. Yet, as MPAC knows, Emerson is uniquely respected by government and law enforcement agencies, by national security journalists, and by the American public.


A less well known questioner is D.C. Watson, a poster at JihadWatch.org., a private citizen and blogger that has written an op-ed piece that came out in the Augusta Free Press. An Open letter to Islamic organizations in America. In the letter, Watson presumes to ask questions of these organizations, and he states that:

While I certainly don't believe that all Muslims are bad people, I do believe that there is an agenda in the Muslim world to somehow attempt to become masters of the universe. Whether through violence or through manipulation of governments, Islamic radicals are attempting to rule the roost. Since we're labeled Islamophobic, intolerant, ignorant and jingoistic for not swallowing Islamic propaganda, perhaps you can address and answer for all of us the following: his questions follow


He ask the group to explain the inconsistencies between what they SAY about Islam and what the Koranic texts. He asks them to explain the discrepancies between what they say about overseas Muslims and their behaviors, whether they are “terrorists,” politicians, academics, governments, the military, or ordinary citizens. He sees the incongruity between their words and their actions.

As Watson applies the same skepticism toward American Muslim groups, we can see why he might be a future target.

Hugh Fitzgerald, a Director at JihadWach.org, writes extensively about Islam and Islamism. You will find an extensive master list of Fitzgerald’s postings at nojihad.com. His topics run the gamut from Ba’athism to Turkey, touching on dozens of topics listed on this site alone. Surely he would be a target.

There are dozens of other sites online that are dedicated to commentary on Islamism. Robert Spencer’s Jihadwatch.org is a site that offers daily news with commentary. Hugh Fitzgerald, D.C. Watson, the writer of the “Open Letter to Islamic Organizations in America” often posts there as well as dozens of others, including yours truly. Surely this site will be a target of MPAC.

A special thanks goes to one of the posters, Susan_b that brought Watson’s letter to my attention. However, Susan_b is no slouch herself as she has written a response to Watson.

Concerned with attempts by MPAC and others to marginalize and silence their critics, Susan writes:

It is writers such as Mr. Watson and myself, and the many others out there, who could possibly become tomorrow's political prisoners. Sometimes, it takes writers to stir a nation's consciousness. We could end up as Muslim apostates would over in Saudi Arabia - being strung up by the neck because we are speaking out against an intolerant and unjust way of life.

We might end up staying over at the poorhouse because our government stood by and watched us get sued by Islamist watchdog groups because we're speaking out using our First Amendment rights and telling the truth.

We could also become victims of our own form of justice as we are locked up for inciting hatred - but it would again be the ignorant who make sure that we are punished for merely speaking out the truth.


Susan has a legitimate fear. We are sticking our necks out with every keystroke. The historical pattern of 1350 years of Muslim intrigue and retribution against critics gives us pause every time we open our mouths or commit our thoughts to paper or the internet. Courage is required when facing these people as death could be the reward for being so brazen, so bold as to speak up against what we know to be the danger of our time.

MPAC will probably not target Susan_b or me, or even D.C. Watson or Hugh Fitzgerald; They have bigger fish to fry. Their success will be measured in the marginalizing, and, perhaps, in the silencing of the bigger fish, Rumsfeld, Robertson, Emerson, Pipes, and even President Bush, causing a chill to fall over our collective voices. Surely they won't be successful in the land of free speech. But they could be if we don't show courage and keep up our end as press back and continue to expose them for what they are: fifth columnists and apologists with the agenda to Islamize the United States of America!

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Proposed British Legislation Would Make Criticism Against Islam a Hate Crime. How Far Should the Curtailment of Free Speech Go?


DPP Cools Expectations on Race Relations

At last a voice of reason is being heard in the wilderness.

“Should anyone who stirs up hatred against Muslims face seven years in prison? And should it become a crime for Muslims to stir up hatred against members of other religious groups?"

It is already an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 to use words of behavior that are likely to stir up hatred against a group defined by their colour or race, or by their ethnic or national origins. And the courts have held that this wording is wide enough to cover religious groups such as Sikhs and Jews.

But that is little use to Muslims, whose adherents come from a variety of racial backgrounds. Nor does it protect Rastafarians, who share ethnic origins with other Afro-Caribbeans. That is why Mr. Blunkett intends to extend the offence of inciting racial hatred to include religious hatred.

Under the proposals put forward in 2001, “religious hatred” was defined as hatred of a group defined by reference to religious belief or lack of belief. “Religious belief” was not further defined.

The problem is that even the existing "racial hatred" law has a very low strike rate. Sitting in his red-painted office in the CPS headquarters, Mr Macdonald reels off the figures: during the past three years, 84 cases of incitement to racial hatred were sent in by the police. Of these, 80 were rejected by the CPS.


The problem is that the ‘the communities that are under threat think that the incitement legislation stops people from insulting them,” he [Mr. Macdonald] says. “It does not.” These groups want more from legislation, they want to curtail free speech and silence any and all that have a diverging opinion or view.

Macdonald continues:
"The legislation does not criminalise offensive language or offensive ideas. No doubt because it is seen as an interference with free speech, it is interpreted by the courts in a very strict way." Parliament could, of course, make it much easier to achieve a conviction by simply making it an offence to use insulting words. And there are other offences under the Public Order Act that may be appropriate in certain cases, such as using insulting words with intent to cause alarm or distress.


Until now, “To be found guilty, a defendant must incite hatred that is likely to lead to disorder.

"If you're going to criminalise a state of mind - which is what this legislation does - there has to be a pretty high hurdle to cross. But that makes life difficult for the prosecutors. When we don't prosecute these cases, we are accused of being racist or incompetent or a combination of the two. So these expectation gaps are dangerous for us."


In order to dispel any and illusions, Macdonald has held meetings with several community groups to explain what the law can and cannot do. He adds:

"I see the force of the argument that if you're protecting racial groups, there are other groups who deserve equal protection. What I'm anxious to avoid is an expectation gap that could be even more heated in this area than it is in the racial area. And I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that, if this legislation is passed, it will protect Muslims from being offended or insulted. In a free and democratic society, we are all entitled to be rude about each other.


How will the law be used?

The DPP says that the new law could be used either to protect or prosecute Muslims. ‘With all legislation, it is not always entirely predictable how it will be used."


My question is what does “incitement to violence mean?” Could it mean stirring up hatred toward non-Muslims or even causing mob violence if angered Muslims, or any other group, decides to avenge a verbal insult, a jibe, a joke, or television event, stand-up comedy routine, or film such as routinely happen in Muslim countries that view such speech as “blasphemy.”

And we can’t forget the murder of Theo Van Gogh for producing a film that criticizes Islam. Could the law be used to censor producers that create works of legitimate criticism that groups might find to be offensive? Surely Mr. Blunkett and the Home Office need to carefully think through the ramifications and applications of this and any further legislation, and how it could be used to squelch silence criticism, thus crushing free speech.

And in this day of international precedents, one needs to think of how in this case a precedent could be set, as offended communities worldwide could point to this legislation as a benchmark against which racial incitement laws of their countries could be measured.

Think and act carefully: Something could be gained by a few individuals in Britain, but much more could be lost.

Canadians Watch Out! You Could Be Arrested for Assault If You Spank Your Children.


Legislation of this type comes up from time to time. Is spanking an appropriate means of teaching or is it really "just coercion" as is alleged by the authors of this legislation? You decide, but I thought you'd like to know how your tax dollars are being used.

Casting America As Diva and the Rest of the World in Bit Parts


In placing all blame for the woes of the world, scholars and journalists alike have put America in the starring role and the rest of the world as actors in bit parts and walk ons. But don’t other countries and their citizens act in their own behalf or do they just sit around and wait for the United States to make a move, to create a situation or a scene?
Is this the behavior of a reasonable government? Are all the world’s politicians toadies and idiots, or is there a concerted effort to “spin” against America? Robert Spencer, Director of JihadWatch reports in Mark Levine: Chomsky as Rock Star.

We also learn that the academic world believes that the West should enter into “hudna” with the terrorists, a bad move, proving that some academics aren’t as smart as they think they are, for hudna, roughly translated as truce, is layered with meaning; a truce for only an interval of ten years in the hope that Muslims will become stronger to be able to attack, the enemy will self destruct or become Muslim, meaning that even though hostilities may stop, the Muslim side will still go forward with the jihad. You would think a tenured Ph.D. at prestigious University of California, Irvine would know this! Apparently common sense wasn’t one of Dr. Levine’s undergraduate classes. Or, being a member of the Left, he prefers that United States fall victim to “terrorism by stealth” as is happening now under the radar.

Shame on you, Dr. Levine.

What is Christianphobia?


Hugh Fitzgerald, A Director at JihadWatch Tells Us.



We hear constant complaints and lamentations about Isalmophobia and what Muslims are going through and how they are being "discriminated against" under current Western governments. Is anyone giving a thought to past and current Christian travails and the discriminatory practices of past and current Muslim governments? Here is Hugh's take on the situation:

Twenty Points for Archibishop Lajolo:

1) If "the war on terrorism is seen linked to Western political strategy" and that this is responsible for "Christianphobia," then what explains the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh in Kashimir? Or on Buddhists in Thailand, and the Bamiyan Buddhas -- the people and the artifacts -- in southern Thailand?

Is this because Hindu (and Sikh) and Buddhist villages and artifacts have also been linked "to Western political strategy"? And if they are so linked, how was it possible to link them, when 60-70 million Hindus were killed, over 250 years, according to the testimony not only of Hindus, but of complacent Muslim observers -- just read the "Rihla" of Ibn Battuta, as he calmly notes the mass enslavement of surviving Hindu villagers? At the time the United States, that center for "anti-terrorism," did not exist.

2) If "Christianphobia" is merely a result of the modern "war on terror" then what shall we make of the treatment of the Copts in Egypt over the past, say, 1300 years? Was it something they said or did that led to their slow and murderous asphyxiation, so that they have been reduced from being the entire population of Egypt, to about 10% of that population? And if the "war on terror" which has been linked "to Western political strategy" began, say, a few years ago, then what explains the murder of close to 100,000 Assyrian Christians, beginning within a year after the British soldiers left Iraq in 1932?

3) If "Christianphobia" is a recent phenomenon, then what explains, over 1350 years, the attacks on Christians and Christian sites -- let's start with the fabled churches of Byzantium -- everywhere that Islam conquered?

4) How is it, if "Christianphobia" is a recent phenomenon, that the Christians of North Africa, from which came some of the most important Fathers of the Chruch, including St. Augustine and before him Tertullian, all disappeared over time, or were reduced to levels, and to a role – as non-Muslims – of insignificance, so that where Tertullian and St. Augustine had once walked, the last French and Italian monks, pursuing a purely charitable vocation, had their throats slit by members of F.I.S., the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria – years before that “war on terror” got started?

5) If “Christianphobia” originates in a reaction to the “war on terror” what explains the imprisonment and torture of foreign Christians, some for supposedly conducting Christian services, others for merely singing Christmas carols, over the past three decades (ever since foreign Christians were allowed in as workers) in Saudi Arabia? When English nurses sang Christmas carols and were punished for it in the 1970s, what connection did that have with a non-existent “war on terror”?

6) Why do the Christians of Ethiopia worry openly about the spread of Islam, and Islamic militancy, in their country? Are Ethiopians identified with the “Western war on terror”?

7) Why, ever since the founding of Pakistan, have Pakistani Christians been subject to assault and murder? Why did Archbishop John Joseph kill himself, years before the so-called “Western war on terror,” leaving a note that showed clearly he was protesting by his act the intolerable cruelty with which Christians were treated by Muslims in Pakistan?

8) Why, if it is the “linkage of “Christian West” to the “war on terror” that explains “Christianphobia” and not what can be found texts in Islam (Qur’an, hadith, and sira), have Indonesian Christians — 200,000 Christians in East Timor and Christians in the Moluccas, Sulawesia, and throughout the East Indian archipelago -- been subject to persecution and murder? Why were between 2,300 and 4,000 churches destroyed in Indonesia in the year 2003 alone, according to the British-based Barnabas Fund?

9) Why were hundreds of Maronite villagers in Damur, and thousands in other Christian villages, massacred by the Muslims in Lebanon in the 1970s? Was this a response to a non-existent “war on terror” that was supposedly linked to the West? Why does Habib Malik, why does Walid Phares, why does Franck Salameh, why do a hundred Maronite intellectuals and writers all deplore the misunderstanding of Islam in the West – and deeply resent the continuous efforts at appeasement by the Vatican in order to win some temporary reprieve not for Eastern Christians (the Copts, the Maronites, and others) but specifically for Roman Catholics?

10) The Vatican is seeing under its very eyes the first slow, now more rapid, Islamization of Europe. Does it care? What is it doing to rally the ranks of Believers? So far the most intelligent and brave opponents within Europe of that Islamization have not come from within the Vatican, but from the ranks of such traditional anti-clerics as Oriana Fallaci, who never fails to be as scathing on the Vatican as she is on the European left. Nor did Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh exactly strike a pious note – but of course, they had the luxury, you may say, of being able to tell the truth, while the Vatican has constantly to worry about the situation of the Christians in Arab lands. Never mind the Vatican’s general indifference to the Eastern Churches, including the Orthodox who have their own historic memory, and present experience, with the Jihad. Why is it that those who understand the situation perfectly, from within the Vatican, have not managed to take complete control of the response to what is now a mortal assault on Christian Europe? Why is this Archbishop Lajolo, despite Cardinals Biffi and Ratzinger, Sandro Magister, and a good many others (including the Cardinals from black Africa, who know perfectly well what Islam is all about), still allowed to speak his appeasing piece – his “peace” that passeth understanding?

11) Do many in the Vatican think that the way to deal with Islam is through concessions and negotiations — despite the fact that Islam is a belief-system whose adherents do not understand or respond in the slightest to any concession or yielding on the part of Islam’s opponents, except to take such yielding as a sign of weakness, and to make use of any temporary “truce” or hudna only to prepare for the next assault – because there can be no permanent peace between Islam and Infidels? A permanent peace simply cannot be permitted.

12) Has the Vatican’s appeasement of Islam made things easier, in the end, for Christians worldwide? Has its defense of Arafat made, for example, the position of Christians – who in the last few years have fled from the P.A. so that where once 20% of “Palestinian” Arabs were Christian, that number is now down to 2% (fleeing not only to the West, but to Israel as well: an Israeli residence card is the most sought-after document by “Palestinian” Christians) – any easier?

13) How does the Vatican regard the refusal, led by France and Belgium, to recognize the “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” roots of Europe? As a temporary aberration? As something that required worried inquiry? And what does the Vatican think of attempts by the likes of Tariq Ramadan, aided by such Western “scholars” of Islam, to exaggerate beyond parody the “contribution” of Islam to Western civilization? What does the Vatican think of Romano Prodi’s address at the Library of Alexandria, offering Europe’s “services” to the Arabs, and specifically to a regime that permits and even encourages the continued persecution of the Copts (with the Egyptian legal code expressly taking the Shari’a as its model)?

14) Now that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France is Muslim, how does the Vatican see its continued influence in Europe? Does it think that constant appeasement of the Arabs has, as a strategy – leaving aside the moral idiocy of it all – has worked? How is Europe, formerly Christian Europe, doing in the little task of protecting its own legacy, created over centuries, by those who would no doubt be aghast at the cravenness of their descendants? Is Europe doing fine, so-so, or not fine at all? Check one.

15) How, with all the appeasement that the Vatican has offered over the years, are the Christians of the Middle East doing? Where are they safest, and best protected? Could it be that the answer is “Israel,” a country which the Vatican has in many ways, in its promotion of the Jihad that is disguised as “Palestinian” nationalism, done so much to harm? And if Israel were to be pushed back still further (or, in its own demoralized and confused state, voluntarily retreat to the pre-1967 lines, which were not borders, but simply the armistice lines recognized in 1949), would this make things better, calm things down, make the Muslims give up their Jihad against Israel as an Infidel sovereignty? Or would it, after the passage of a year or three, simply start all over again, a relentless assault with a now-strategically hopeless position for the hapless Israelis?

16) And leaving aside the little matter of morality, that thing called by some the Holocaust, the centuries of persecution and forced conversion and murder of Jews in Western Christendom, which are not erased by an apology or two, what will happen when Muslims again control the Holy Land? What do you envision, in the Vatican, will be the situation of free Christian access to these sites? What was it like before Israel, in the centuries before the Western world could impose its will on a decrepit Ottoman Empire?

17) And what will happen, in the end, to those who within the Vatican have counseled appeasement and tried to inveigle others, Catholics and other Christians, into parroting that appeasement? At what point will the folly of these willful misunderstandings and misstatements become clear – just as clear as they are now to all the far-sighted who come to this website? Will there be any consequences for those who have been so damagingly interested in pretending that appeasement has worked, just as those outside the Vatican (Solana, Chirac, Patten) wish us to believe – credunt quia absurdum – in their policies, and their own power and significance, as long as they can?

18) If the “war on terror” is the cause of Muslim hatred of Christians (“Christianphobia”) then one wishes to understand whether Archbishop Lajolo, or the Vatican itself for which he is naturally assumed to be speaking, believes this “war on terror” should end? Does it think, for example, that it was wrong to destroy the Al-Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan? Is it wrong to disarm Iraq – or would it be wrong to disarm any Muslim polity, for none one can be trusted with major arms? That might increase some local danger to local Christians – but so what? Is Western policy, helping to determine whether or not Western societies and peoples survive, to be permanently inhibited -- so that the condition of those Christians held hostage in Muslim societies remains permanently insecure?

Surely it is more important to draw the right lesson: that we do not approve or accept the slightest extension in size of that Muslim world, or the slightest increase in Muslim power. For wherever that Muslim power goes, non-Muslims within dar al-Islam live in permanent thrall to the threats of Muslims – and surely no one knows this better than Archbishop Lajolo and all those who, in their appeasement, reveal just how keenly aware they are that Muslims are quick to scapegoat, to threaten, and to carry out threats against Christians (or any and all non-Muslims) when they feel their wars on behalf of Islam are being responded to, not in kind (for no non-Muslim power has ever stooped to the methods now routinely being used, and applauded, by Muslims) but at least with a certain steadiness.

It is too bad that the Israelis for so many decades allowed themselves to be so inhibited in their responses. Had they allowed themselves – or been allowed by a tsk-tsking world – the Arabs and Muslims might have been taught a lesson, and claiming “darura,” (the doctrine of necessity), withdrawn at least temporarily to a more peaceful kind of behavior.

The Arabs and Muslims have never suffered the kind of injury that the American armed forces inflicted on Germany and Japan to hasten the end of World War II, including the reduction of Berlin and Tokyo to rubble. They therefore have a very unrealistic sense (based on the mild measures of tiny Israel, so concerned with its “purity of arms,”) of what can be done. Nothing like what could be done: Falluja, Baghdad, all of Iraq, indeed all of the Muslim Middle East, could be taken care of overnight. This has to be made clear, and understood. And in the same way, the Muslims within Europe have to understand that they should not be fooled by the sufferance of the long-suffering Infidels. At a certain point, when “civilized” behavior becomes suicidal and is widely recognized as such, it can be, quite properly, jettisoned.

19) If Muslims take out on local Christians their own fury at the Infidels daring – daring! –to act to defend themselves, that is regrettable. But Western policy cannot be held hostage to Arab Christians. As for the Christians – Arabic-speaking but not Arab – such as the Copts and the Maronites – well, they have been singularly unimpressed by the indifference of the Vatican to their permanent plight. France was once the protector of the Maronites; it abandoned that role, which was then assumed by Israel, and would still be Israel’s role if it were not constantly under assault by that “Christian” Europe which will, in the end, suffer whatever Israel suffers, and will, psychologically, be far more likely to undertake certain measures of civilizational self-defense if it had not, a decade or two before, so noisily condemned such measures if undertaken by Israel – such as some transfer of Arab populations from one side of the Jordan to the other, for reasons even more comprehensible than those which led the Czechs after World War II to expel 3 million ethnic Germans, and many other countries – Poland, Hungary, and so on – to undertake similar measures on a smaller scale.

20) Who in the Vatican has carefully read the Qur’an, the hadith, and sira? Who in the Vatican has read that indispensable history, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam” by Bat Ye’or? Who will read her forthcoming “Eurabia”? Who will understand that it is not Archbishop Lajolo, but Bat Ye'or and a few of her Vatican admirers, who have a better sense of what Islam is all about? Who will realize that it is not merely a “war on terror” but a war of self-defense against the Jihad, and that two of the most formidable instruments of Jihad are Da’wa (the Call to Islam) and demography (in this case, the overbreeding of Muslims wherever they are, and especially in Europe, where the Muslim birth-rate in some countries is five times the non-Muslim rate: 7 ½% versus 1 ½%. Do the math. Draw some lines. Figure it out.

Anyone making plans to ship the statuary in St. Peter’s across the ocean? Or all those paintings with Madonnnas? The Pieta alone would be quite a headache, to get it over to American shores, and safely in Kansas.

Who is in charge of long-range emergency planning at the Vatican? Time to get cracking. The mixture as before just won’t do.

Tell Me Exactly…What Does a Terrorist Look Like?


“Fear of racial offense putting flyers in peril as companies are punished with ‘sensitivity training,’ while pilots act out of fear of Muslim litigation.”

Anti-discrimination lawsuits are running amok while airlines are trying to find a way to determine which passengers may safely board airliners as “government officials continue to compromise national security in order to avoid accusations of “racial profiling”—and in order to publicly acknowledge that the 9/11 Commission finally said: that the “enemy is not just ‘terrorism,’ [but] Islamist terrorism.”

Why is the government choosing litigation over the safety of airline passengers? Heather MacDonald Tells us why in City Journal

In 1997, government attorneys worried that a proposed anti-terrorism system for airlines might work too well. Although an early prototype of the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening System (CAPPS I) assiduously avoided collecting information about a passenger’s national origin, religion, race, or sex in assessing the risk that he might be terrorist, civil rights lawyers in the Justice and Transportation Departments fretted that the system might still be “discriminatory.” It still might pull aside “too many people of Arab descent by looking at, say frequent travel to the Middle East, among other risk factors.


MacDonald continues with the assertion that “Public-policy obsession with avoiding any possible charge of racism was the luxury of an age that believed that the United States faced no greater danger than the bigotry of its own people.”

I was astounded and speechless when I first read this statement. Racial bigots are more dangerous to America than terrorists? If the lives of hundreds of weren’t in the balance each time a plane takes off I might quibble with this assertion for bigotry is a characteristic that I normally find offensive. I draw the line at bigotry against terrorists. Forgive me; if this makes me a bigot, well I am!

In fact I am bigoted against other things as well. Let me list some of them. I am a bigot because I am prejudiced against those that fill and knowingly send shipping containers of dangerous materials to the U.S. in order to harm or kill me and kill members of my family. I am a prejudiced bigot against those government officials in other countries that harbor terrorists. My bigotry shows when I condemn others that give aid and comfort to the enemy. My prejudice and bigotry also extends to those that condemn me for being so stupid as to condemn me for having these bigoted feelings and for condemning the airline industry for attempting to keeping me safe should I ever again get on a plane.

Today my fear of flying has nothing to do with airline maintenance safety, nor weather conditions. In fact, I used to love to fly. Today I am more afraid of the inane policies of my own government that put “racial, ethnic, and religious” profiling ahead of what any sane person understands: sensitivity and fuzzy, warm feelings aren’t going to keep terrorists with bombs and other dangerous materials off of planes. Only unrelenting scrutiny and tough enforcement will do that.

Should I decide to get on a plane again, you bet I’ll be first in line to be thoroughly scrutinized, down to my skivvies if necessary. I’ll open my baggage for inspection and I’ll answer pertinent questions. Those passengers that are not willing to do so are putting the rest of us at risk. If you are too sensitive to go through this process or your religion forbids such scrutiny, I say to you: “Get off of the plane and find another mode of transportation."

I don’t care about sitting next to a person of another race or ethnic group, or even a person of another religion. I care my survival and of that of my family, and of course, the hundred or so other passengers that are along for the ride.

It appears that my government is full of useful idiots, useful to the terrorists. This shows what an expensive law school education can buy. Apparently they don’t have courses in common sense as only idiot would care more about regulations than airline safety.

Monday, December 06, 2004

A Nihilist Flashes Her Soul

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Jingle Bell Schlock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of library research could not give a better example of the soul of a nihilist than this opinion piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. She has been in a serious tail-spin for some time now, manifested by ever-increasingly bitter columns. This poor woman seems to hate anything as long as someone values it. That is the essence of nihilism, hating values and valuers, and particularly hating the good for being good.

It's not the specifics of this piece that stand out as much as the tone. Certain aspects of Christmas she mentions, I agree with. Hackneyed Christmas music gets worse by the year. Yesterday, while grocery shopping, I had to listen to every barroom-styled and jazzed up "interpretations" of the old chestnuts like "Frosty the Snowman." And, repetition of seasonal movies has the effect of over-doing anything. However, I accept that many people enjoy such repetitions and call it part of their traditions.

But to hate, to hate because people find joy in this season, to reject life, happiness, and prosperity? Only a nihilist could do it this well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 5, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jingle Bell Schlock
By MAUREEN DOWD

If I hear "Frosty the Snowman" one more time, I'll rip his frozen face off.

It's a scientific fact, or should be, that Christmas music can turn you into a fruitcake. It either sends you into a Pavlovian shopping trance, buying stupid things like the Robosapien, or, if you hear repeated Clockwork-Orange choruses of "Ring, Christmas Bells" drilling into your brain with that slasher-movie staccato, makes you feel as possessed with Christmas spirit as Norman Bates.

I've never said this out loud before, but I can't stand Christmas.

Everyone in my family loves it except me, and they can't fathom why I get the mullygrubs, as a Southern friend of mine used to call a low-level depression, from Thanksgiving straight through New Year.

"You're weird," my mom says. This from a woman who once left up our Christmas tree until April 3, and who listens to a radio station that plays carols 24/7 all month.

My equally demonic sister has a whole collection of rodents dressed in holiday clothes that she puts up around her house. There's a mouse Santa Claus and mouse Mrs. Claus and mice elves and a miniature Christmas village with mice, and some rat Cinderella coachmen in pink waistcoats and rats in red velvet vests and more rats, wearing frilly red-and-white nightshirts and nightcaps and holding little candles, leading you up the steps to bed. It's beyond creepy. I keep fretting that it's going to be like "Willard" meets "The Nutcracker," where they come alive and eat her like a Christmas pudding.

My mom and sister both blissfully sat through "It's a Wonderful Life" again on Thanksgiving weekend, while even hearing a mere snatch of that movie makes me want to scarf down a fistful of antidepressants - and join all the other women in America who are on a holiday high - except our family doctor is a Scrooge about designer drugs, leaving me to self-medicate as Clarence gets his wings with extra brandy in the eggnog.

I've given a lot of thought to why others' season of joy is my season of doom - besides the obvious fact that yuppies have drenched the holidays in ever more absurd levels of consumerism.

I think it has to do with how stressed out my mom and sister would get on Christmas Day when I was little. I remember them snapping at me; they seemed tense because of all the aprons to be sashed and potatoes to be mashed. (In our traditional Irish household, women slaved and men were waited on.)

It might be exacerbated by the stress I feel when I think of all the money I've spent on lavishing boyfriends with presents over the years, guys who are now living with other women who are enjoying my lovingly picked out presents which I'm no doubt still paying for in credit card interest charges.

I was embracing my Christmas black dog the other day when I read a Times article so scary it made my hair - and my genes - curl.

It was about how severe stress can make a woman age very rapidly and prematurely, looking years older than her chronological age, because the stress causes the DNA in our cells to shrink, and sort of curl down on itself, until the cells can no longer replicate. "When people are under stress they look haggard, it's like they age before your eyes, and here's something going on at a molecular level" that reflects that impression, said one of the researchers, Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn of the University of California at San Francisco.

So now, on top of all the stress related to having a president and vice president who scared us to death about terrorists to get re-elected, I have to be stressed about the fact that my holiday stress might cause me to turn into an old bat - instantly, just like it happened in Grimm's fairy tales, when a girl would be cursed and suddenly become a crone. Or just like this Christmas doll my sister brought home once that had an apple for a head; her face looked all juicy and white at the start of the week and then by the end of the week, it was all discolored and puckered.

I flipped through the hot new self-help book by Gordon Livingston, a psychiatrist from Columbia, Md., "Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart: Thirty True Things You Need to Know Now."

One of them is the cardinal rule of anxiety: Avoidance makes it worse; confrontation gradually improves it.

Yep. I definitely need to rip Frosty's face off.



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

Sunday, December 05, 2004

New Material on 6th Column Against Jihad Website

We have just published a huge amount of new material on 6th Column Against Jihad. We have new material from George Mason, Cubed, Portia, and a wonderful new entry from D.C.Watson, as well as lots of other stuff. These are very big changes, and we invite you to peruse our site.

Another issue. We have grown so much on the website that we have to change how we do business, techie-speaking. We are going to convert our present website into one with the same name but with vastly improved capability for us. That will mean that we go off-line for a few days. We will plan to do this in two to three weeks, mostly over the holidays. It is a wonderful problem to have regardless of the headaches that come with the change.

Religious and Cultural Pride



I was struck by one sentence from the press release announcing The 4th Annual MPAC Convention to be held December 18, 2004 in Long Beach, California. The sentence in question reads:

“We must contribute to shaping the future of our children, they deserve to grow up liberated from violent media images and proud of their religion.”

I totally agree with this statement, but I’m sure that my reason and meaning diverge greatly from that of the MPAC conventioneers and other Muslims. Certainly all children deserve to be able to grow up in at atmosphere of respect and freedom from fear.

On the surface an unsuspecting reader would believe that those appearing on the poster are villainous haters of Muslims and Islam that have created an atmosphere of fear and hatred against Muslim Americans. That they haven’t done this and aren’t creating the atmosphere would surprise readers that hear a constant whining from CAIR, MPAC and others about how Islam is under attack by Americans and America.

The truth is that before 9/11, few Americans were paying attention to the activities of Muslims, and fewer still knew how to recognize or interpret the mysteries of Islam and its various rituals. Social conventions and cultural mores that were imported from the Middle East and other Muslim countries were considered “odd,” yet not understood as deleterious to the concepts of freedom that Americans so cherishes. Life for them was comfortable while living under the radar.

Since 9/11, many Americans have not only asked, “Why is this happening,” but “Who are these people” that are representatives of this belief system. They wonder about what does it mean to be Muslim and they wonder why Muslims have resisted integration into American society, a behavior that is unlike that of any of the other immigrant groups that have come to America except for the Amish and a few other small Christian groups that prefers to live a more primitive life style and some Orthodox Jewish groups. Unlike Islam and Muslims, these small groups of Christians and Jews are not seen as a threat to their neighbors nor to the nation as a whole. They are not seen as predators, waiting to overtake and change America in their image at the expense of non-Muslim America.

Americans have seen the behavior of Muslims in other Western countries. The have noted the non-cooperation and the resistance to integration into the host culture, in spite of extremely liberal social policies. Sometimes these European Muslims have been violent, even murderous to their neighbors, so Americans have come to the conclusion that Muslims and Islam are not compatible with Western values, making the charge in the press release that “Political extremists are using the actions of religious extremists to justify their attempts to trample civil liberties” is disingenuous.

What is the real problem? Are “political extremists” attempting to trample civil liberties because of a few religious extremists? If only that were true, the problem could be easily solved, or is there something else going on that Muslims refuse to acknowledge?

Isn't the problem with Muslims themselves? Isn't the problem with Islam, with certain social and religious practices that most non-Muslims find abhorrent? What if honor killings didn't exist? What if female circumcision wasn't an accepted practice among Muslims? What if blaring bullhorns weren't used to announce prayers, of if the presence of pork products was not an anathema to Muslims, regardless of the feelings of the majority culture? There are many what ifs that can be cited to explain why non-Muslim Americans are annoyed with their Muslim neighbors.

However, annoyance isn't fear nor concern that Muslims might harm them. Regardless of how much they protest, non-Muslim Americans are going to be suspicious of people whose co-religionists are out kill them, enslave them, and destroy their government and way of life, especially if American Muslims don't stand firmly against those that they claim have hijacked their religion. Silence is acceptance of principle and acquiescence to policy.

Another what if concerns 9/11 and the exposure of Muslim Americans to scrutiny. If 0/11 had not happened, Muslims and non-Muslims would have gone along as before until a tipping point was reached. Non-Muslims would not have understood the significance of the tipping point nor why it occured. It would have been too late for us all for armed conflict would be the only way to solve such a problem.

Muslims lived comfortably under the radar and non-Muslim Americans lived blissfully in their ignorance of Islam, and Muslims were happy that they were ignorant. We can’t go back. The radar is spinning, people are awakening to things occurring in the world and in the United States that they thought not possible being illuminated by the spotlight, and things look better in dimly lit places.

The MPAC conventioneers have vowed to come up with strategies to counter what they see as inaccuracies about Islam and Muslims. What strategies will the MPAC conventioneers contrive to silence both critics and the curious? Will they resort to taqiyya and kitman, age old Muslim tactics to confuse and divert the attention of non-Muslims from what is really going on? Will they resort to more law suits to silence their critics? Will they hire Michael Moore on a Muslim equivalent to produce yet more media productions that show a sanitized Islam and Muslims in a wonderful light, downplaying or ignoring that which is not good and positive about Islam? Will they propose legislation to silence critics such as the laws that curtail free speech in Canada and the U.K. that make any questioning or criticism of Islam and crime?

Muslims are already well ahead of non-Muslims in the propaganda campaign as they have devised successful ways to get Islam into universities and schools and Christianity and Judaism out. Granted they aren’t working alone as the ACLU and others are diligently working for the same goal, but, curiously, the ACLU and their cohorts aren’t making an effort to Islam’s entrance into these same schools, making their separation of church and state a travesty.

Life was comfortable under the radar as Americans and other Westerners weren’t reading the Koran for themselves, the ahadiths, the sira, and books that have put the behavior of Muslims under the spotlight. And that’s the problem. Behaviors that were once seen as quirky or odd are now seen obnoxious because non-Muslims now know what they mean and what could happen to them and their culture if the Islamists are successful. They've also noticed that Muslim Americans, especially naturalized Muslims, are not living up to their citizenship oath to "defend and protect the Constitution and to reject all powers and principalities..." Putting the Ummah before America is seen as more than unfriendly, it is un-American and, if some struggle against America to give "aid and comfort to the enemy," this behavior is actually treason.

Non-Muslim Americans have heard about dhimmitude, the status of non-Muslims under Muslim law, Sha’ria, Muslim law and how rights and behaviors of all are restricted. They've also heard about the Caliphate, the now-defunct Islamic empire that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists are trying to revitalize. All of these things and many others have come to light and are being inserted into the daily conversation of non-Muslim Westerners who demand to know what are the intentions of their Muslim neighbors and what is the long-term ambition of the Islamic community that has found its way into Western lands. These and other topics are on many lips. Conventions and ad campaigns, film and rap songs to the contrary, non-Muslims want to see results, not more words.

The MPAC convention states as a goal: “It is our duty as American Muslims to break the cycle (of the political extremists that are using the actions of religious extremists…) by exposing it and contributing to public discourse that will clear our name the name of our religion, secure the safety of our country, and preserve the integrity of our democracy.”; Ambitious and worthy goals.

Public discourse is welcome, but exposing the political extremists could mean an attempt to silence those that have differing point of view. One only has to look at the slate of announced speakers to know that the intention of convention will not completely live up to its hype, for most are either Muslim apologists or those connected someway with Islamic extremism. Tariq Ramadan – a smooth-talking controversial Swiss academic, connected to the Muslim Brotherhood who is to go to teach at Notre Dame; John Esposito- controversial professor of religion at Georgetown University; Dr. Jamal Badawi professor of economics at St. Mary’s University and a well-known and controversial speaker; James Yee, famous for being charged with espionage and then having the charges withdrawn; Sadullah Kahn – Islamic Center of Irvine, CA; Hassan Qazwin-American-born Muslim imam at Dearborn, Michigan, "adviser to presidents." Dr. Asama Barlas- Ithaca College, and Maher Hathout- senior advisor and one of the founders of the MPAC, are specifically named on the advertisement.

A downloadable pdf file of the convention program entitled “Countering Religious & Political Extremism” gives us another list of names, some of whom are more familiar to Amerians: Art Torres – Chairman, California Democratic Party; Moderator: Dr. Laila Al-Marayati -spokesperson and past president of the Muslim Women's League; Salam Al-Marayati - Executive Director of MPAC; Chuck Pena-CATO Institute; Amy Goodman – Pacifica Radio; Robert Greenwald – Executive Producer, “Unconstitutional” & “Outfoxed”; Dr. Greg Orfalea – Pitzer College; Michael Wolfe – author, Taking Back Islam Director, “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet”; Tariq Aquil – Founder of the Islamic Social Services Foundation of Los Angeles; Dalia Hashad –American Civil Liberties Union.

A very impressive sounding group. Information about some of these can be found at FrontPageMagazine.com.

If Muslims, or anyone else, want to restore religious and cultural pride, then the religion and the culture must be able to bear a critical scrutiny. Denial and attempts to divert attention or characterizing critics as bigots, racists, intolerant, extremists, and so on, tells more about the accusers than their critics. This conference and the whining and complaining say that Muslims don’t want to change their ways, to integrate into Western culture. Most Non-Muslim Americans understand that their own culture needs revision, and they are willing to look themselves in the mirror and makes those painful and difficult changes. Thus far, Muslims are not willing to do the same, preferring instead to require that non-Muslims make the attitude adjustment, an unacceptable demand.

Behavior patterns of European Muslims are the measure against which non-Muslim Americans make their judgment. If American Muslims want to be seen as different, then they must actually be differently, not just seem different from other Muslims, remembering that America is an idea, not an address. No group, not even Muslims, can be allowed to force their religion or ethnicity upon America. It seems that Muslims don’t want to be a layer in the American salad. Instead they want to be the overpowering salad dressing.

Certainly we hope that Muslims can be part of an America that respects everyone. But respect is a two-way street. Non-Muslims don’t see that Muslims respect them. If Muslims want their children to value their religion and culture they must make changes within their own community and be willing to meet non-Muslims half way, a practice that seems to have been overlooked by Muslims in the past millennium.

The course can not be reversed. Scrutiny of Islam and Muslims will continue because Americans have been awakened to a danger. And it is well to remind everyone of Taqiyya and Kitman, practices of deception, evasion, misdirection, and even lying that are permitted under Islamic law. Thus, it will hard for Muslims to convince the rest of us that their goals and intentions are suitable for the idea of America.

Are Terrorists STILL Raising Money in the U.S.?


Yesterday, November 4, 2004, Nova Southeastern University reportedly hosted a fund-raiser for Islamic Relief, an Islamic charity group that is under investigation for accepting a contribution from a front group for Al-Qaida. The group has come under repeated fire in the U.S. and Britain. There will be a second performance today, Sunday, December 5, 2004.

According to a WND story, “pending performers include a vocal supporter of the terrorists group Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

The event at the Nova Southeastern University Miniaci Performing Arts Center was characterized as a “Muslim Family Entertainment Night,” and was to feature performances by Native Deen, Qari Abdul Jaleel, Qari Asif, and Shaam. Tickets were to cost $12 per person, and $50 for a family of five.

The Islamic Relief, a group based in Burbank, California, in conjunction with the Medina Foundation/Islamic Foundation of Central Florida, reportedly mixed the sounds of hip-hop with the message of Islam in a concert held in Davie, Florida. Money raised at the concert is purported to go to “education, housing, and food for orphans in Bosnia, Chechnya, and other countries.”

Michelle Malkin a syndicated columnist and author of Invasion and The Case for Internment. wrote:

"Data from the United States Department of Labor reveals that four Muslim charities under federal investigation for ties to terrorism applied for high tech, or H1-B visas, on behalf of at least sixteen workers over the past years. Three of the charities ... had their assets frozen by the Treasury Department after the September 11 attacks. The fourth, Islamic Relief Worldwide in Burbank, California, accepted $50,000 from an alleged bin Laden front group at its British office, according to Treasury officials," wrote Malkin.

According to Janes Intelligences Review cited in the WND article:

“College Concert for Terror-Supporting Agency,” “At the height of the foreign Arab and Muslim influx into Pakistan-Afghanistan from 1984 to 1986, bin Laden spent time traveling widely and raising funds from the Arab world…The banks channeled funds to 20 non-governmental organizations, the most famous of which was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). Both IIRO and the Islamic Relief Agency functioned under the umbrella of the World Islamic League.”


Once again we see the umbrella of an international Islam at work in the United States.

Even more interesting is the identity of the founder of Islamic Relief, Hanni al Banna, a “trustee and fundraiser for Muslim Aid, a charity created in London by singer Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam. Stevens or Islam, when queried in the past denied that monies from his charity could have been used for terrorism.

Islamic Relief holds concerts all over the world. Reportedly connected to the International Solidarity Movement, an organization outlawed in Israel that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, Islamic Relief held a fundraiser at Britain’s Birmingham Central Mosque, which the FBI has said “is a central location for jihad recruitment in the U.K. Another Islamic Fundamentalist group, Al-Muhajiroun, has held regular meetings at the mosque. Leaflets encouraging congregats to fight in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Israel, and Iraq were distributed, and two men connected with a 2003 pizzaria bombing in Israel were reportedly recruited at the mosque. The mosque has terrorist connections.

Although Islamic relief has been caught harboring known terrorists in its Mideast office – including members of Islamic Jihad, Thom Saffold, a leader of the International Solidarity Movement, recently made a public pledge for his supporters to donatr to the Islamic Relief.

Who else besides Muslims would ask for charitable donations in this way?

"Below are three ways by which you can help [the suffering Palestinians.] ... The first is a way as to how you can directly serve as a human shield for the Palestinians against the racist Zionists ... The second way is to make a direct donation to Islamic Relief ... The third way is to join the increasing number of demonstrations underway in the U.S. and the world against the Zionist aggression," wrote Saffold in an open letter.


But will the money raised at Saturday’s concert in Davie, Florida really go to widows and orphans?

On the Islamic Relief website (http://www.irw.org/orphans/), naturally under the picture of a cute smiling little boy, the website defines “orphans” as children whose fathers have died or have been killed. Their mother, a relative or a recognized institution cares for most orphans.” According to the WND article, “This allows the group to raise money for families of suicide bombers and mujaheeden fighters says Beila Rabinowitz of Militant Islam Monitor.”

"It's the old 'orphans' ploy. They use the codeword 'orphan' to stave off any scrutiny or accusations of terrorist fund-raising, and to hide that they are raising money for families of suicide bombers and mujahedeen. It is a travesty of the war on terror that Nova Southeastern is allowing its theater to be used by Islamic Relief to raise money for fictitious 'orphans,'" said Rabinowitz.


Check out the data for the “orphans” listed on the Islamic Relief website. Only the dates of fathers’ deaths are listed, often “within months of the listed birthdays of the children in question.” But, Fauzia Mohamed, one of the events coordinators stated: “We don’t know who the orphans are. I am telling you they are orphans.”

Of the performers listed above at the December 4 and 5, 2004 concert, singer Ratib a vocal supporter of the terrorist organization Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has “perpetrated many suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, performs wearing an Al Asqa scarf, considered in the Islamic world to be a statement of support for the terror group. His own website features several pictures of him in the scarf.

David Harris, Nova University spokesperson told World Net Daily that they University “cleared the charity organization with Homeland Security, the FBI and law enforcement before the theater was rented.” But in the past, universities have cleared organizations they have hosted with U.S. law enforcement “only to have the events turn controversial.”

A recent example is the October 2004 Palestinian Solidarity Conference at Duke University led by International Solidarity Movement co-founder Huweida Arraf. Leaflets were distributed and attendees were instructed through a slide show on how to “fool Israeli border control, since ISM members are denied entry.”

According to Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, “All too often, university employees apologize for Islamist terrorism and sometimes they are even involved with it.” Pipes also said: “But the university as a place to raise money for Islamist terrorism sounds new to me. It represents another ominous sign of the direction in which institutions of higher education are heading.”

Daniel Pipes maintains an extensive file of Islamists terrorism and Muslim activities in the U.S. at DanielPipes.org.Also, FrontPagemagazine.com has several articles that describe how universities are being used by many groups, including the Left and Islamism.

See both Daniel Pipes and FrontPageMagazine for an eye-opening look into how universities are being used by front groups.

Muslim Family Night Entertainment at Nova University sounds innocuous. We can’t be sure whether or not the money raised will ever go to “widows and orphans.” We thought the money sent to Saddam for Oil-for-Food would go to feed starving Iraqis and buy medicine for sick children. Instead he sent the money as compensation for the families of suicide bombers in Israel, in fact, paying them a salary to murder out of donated funds. Have other Muslim charities also funded terror? Law enforcement agencies seem to think that Americans have duped out of millions of dollars to fund violence.

END NOTES:

“Group Mixes Hip-Hop With Islam.” http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cmuslim04dec04,0,21012.story

“College Concert for Terror-Supporting Charity.” http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41752

“Terror-Harboring Group Recruits Students at Duke.” http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40973


FrontPageMagazine.com – Academia/Campus Campaigns
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/GetArticleByTopic.asp?D=Academia+%2F+Campus+Campaigns+&ID=1

Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Stoned to Death … Why Europe and the Americas Are Starting to Lose Its Faith in Islam



It’s about time, but is it too late? Europe is farther along in the process of Islamization than is either North or South America. In Europe, the feathers that are breaking the camel’s back have been the broad-daylight in the street ritual slaughter of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands by a Moroccan immigrant, and the lapidation death (stoning) in Marseille of a young Tunisian-born French woman, days before she was about to be married because “she refused the advances of a teenage boy.” ‘Her skull was smashed by rocks hurled by at least two young men, according to police.’

Muslim women in France are reacting an organizing themselves in against “obscurantism” and “fundamentalism that imprisons women” in groups such as one called “Ni Putes ni Soumises” (Neither Whores nor Submissive). Similar groups are springing up all over Europe.

It seems that political correctness is finally being abandoned by politicians, governments, and media that so passionately defended the principles of tolerance and multiculturalism that have brought Europe’s indigenous populations to the precipice of extinction by an overwhelming demographic onslaught of Muslims propelled by Islamists to create an Islamic republic of the E.U.

Europeans have come to realize that Islam, especially Islamism, the political form of Islam is “incompatible with Europe’s liberal values.” Europeans realize that “more muscular methods are needed to integrate Europe’s 13-million strong Muslim community and to combat creeds that breed extremists and ultimately, terrorism.” Europeans are trying to promote a “moderate European Islam.”

Is moderation possible in Islam? It is said that there might be moderate Muslims, but that Islam itself can not be moderated because Islam must be taken as whole doctrine, a whole system of living and thinking, one that is based on the immutable Koran from which nothing added nor subtracted, and on Sira and ahadiths, the traditions of the life and times of Mohammed and his followers in the early years of the development of Islam, a belief system that arose in the tradition of the desert Bedouin. The Arab mind is the mind of the Bedouin and Arabic thought has made its stamp on all sects of Islam and on all Muslims throughout time, wherever they have lived. Twenty-first century Muslims are no exception.

Europeans are now stuck with millions of Muslim immigrants that are urbanized Bedouins first and Europeans second, meaning that their “tribe” is the Umma, the brotherhood of world Muslims, and their “clans” are the various sects. Of course these are metaphorical values as blood relationships are important to these people, but higher thinking processes tie them all together under the umbrella of Islam. National loyalty is transitory and unnecessary when one identifies with the Islamic brotherhood.

Islam produces everything that Muslims need – a commercial system, a system of family law (Sha’ria), rituals and processes to determine the purpose, the “right” and “wrong” of every thought and deed. Muslims have no need for the Other, the Infidel, non-Muslims except in the sense that non-Muslims occupy lands, have goods and services, and wealth that have eluded modern Muslims for some time. For this reason Muslims have wandered into Western spaces in the hope of acquiring Western rights while searching for places to put down new roots. But unlike previous recent immigrants that integrated well into the new societies, they harken back to the older traditions of immigrants that once scourged both Europe and the Americas. The older immigrants came to pillage and conquer. Twenty-first century Muslims are mix of the old and the new. Islamists represent the old, and other less extreme Muslims represent the new, but together they are a force of possibly irreversible change that is being forced upon the indigenous Europeans and on the Americas which the Europeans themselves had conquered several centuries ago.

Europeans discarded their self-promoting empires in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and are aghast as, ironically, they are being colonized by their some of their former colonials that were invited in as either guest workers, asylum seekers, or citizens by right of being former colonials. Europeans thought that they were being “tolerant and multicultural” with this policy.

“The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart,” said Angela Merkel, leader of Germany’s Christian Democrat opposition. “Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots.” Italy’s traditional tolerance towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West was under way and that Islam was “a religion more fanatical than any other”.


Similar views are being heard all over Europe. Europeans have started to implement measures to curb their Muslim immigrants, and, naturally Muslims, unaccustomed to acceding to any law but that of Allah, have reacted, often violently to new policies that are characterized by them as “racist,” “intolerant,” reactions of Islamophobia, “fascist,” and “totalitarian.” Freedom of religion seems to mean that Muslims can do as they please as long as it’s cloaked in the garb of Islam.

Also ironic is this astonishing conclusion:

“…some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the U.S. On Tuesday a writer for Libération, the French left-wing daily, noted that immigrants in the U.S. threw themselves into “the American dream” and prospered. ‘There is no French, Dutch or other European dream,’ she noted. ‘You emigrate here to escape poverty and nothing more.’ ”


Although it is refreshing to hear our European cousins give us a backdoor-compliment, we can’t forget that Muslims and Islam are a growing concern in the United States and Canada. Islamists are beginning to rally some Muslims to extremism in the U.S., more, though, in Canada. What precautions must be taken to prevent the kinds of difficulties and violence that have marred recent events in Europe? 9/11 changed the perceptions of Americans toward Islam and the European experience is ample warning of the kinds of problems that can arise out of the mixture of Islam with Democracy, Muslims with non-Muslims. Certainly both Muslims and non-Muslims should individually respect each other, but, Muslims must understand that they are no different from any other immigrant group and that Islam may not be a force in America as Sha’ria is incompatible with Democracy.



END NOTE:
“Stoned to Death … Why Europe Is Starting to Lose Its Faith in Islam.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1387077,00.html

Bringing Arabic to U.S./ Canadian High Schools.



Why would Americans or Canadians want to learn Arabic? Why do they need to learn Arabic? And the important question, why do “growing numbers of organizations desire to introduce an Arabic curriculum” into the high school curriculum?

We must make Arabic as prevalent in the United States as Spanish. Or at least as commonplace as French, and German.
The Arabic Language Institute Foundation (ALIF), a Los Angeles-based organization is committed to introducing the teaching of the Arabic language into public high schools.
(1)

The world of languages is roughly divided by the numbers of speakers, those that use a language as a first language acquired in the family unit. Most would not be surprised that with more than 1.2 billion people mostly in mainland China, Cantonese is be spoken by the greatest number of people, followed by Spanish, varieties of which are spoken mostly in Latin America, and of course Spain, and Arabic, which is spoken in the following countries:
Mauretania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have Arabic as their primary official language, although not all of the citizens of these countries are speakers of Arabic. Arabic is also an official language of Israel, Djibouti, and Somalia. There are also Arabic-speaking populations in Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the official languages of Malta, Maltese, is an interesting case. Even though it is related to the Algerian and Tunisian varieties of Arabic, and thus classified as a Semitic language, it is the only known form of Arabic that is written in the Latin script. Moreover, due to its linguistic isolation from the Arab world during the heyday of European colonization, it has been heavily influenced by Italian and English.
(2)

After 9/11, more and more people became interested in learning Arabic, but Arabic has been pushed for a long time as we can see in this teaser promoting students to learn Arabic at Indiana University:

Arabic is widely spoken on two continents, from North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula. It is the official language of twenty two countries with more than 220 million inhabitants, placing it among the top ten languages of the world in number of speakers. The numerical, political, cultural, and religious status of the language was formally recognized by the United Nations in 1973 when Arabic was made the sixth official language of that body (the others are Chinese, English, Russian, French, and Spanish).

Most people know that Arabic is the written and spoken language of the 220 million people of the Arab world, but few realize that the Arabic script is used by approximately one-seventh of the world's population. Its alphabet, with some modification, is used to write non-Semitic languages as well, such as Persian, Urdu and Kurdish (i.e. The Arabic Zaa' with the addition of two dots, becomes the sound 'Zhe' as in Zhivago; the Arabic Faa' with the addition of two dots, makes the 'V' sound and so on—sounds that do not exist in Arabic, but do in Kurdish, Persian and Urdu). The Turkish language employed Arabic script until the 1920's. Several African and Asian languages, such as Swahili and the Malaysian tongue, have also used the Arabic script at some point. The Arabic script is still used today in Afghanistan, sections of China, and Muslim areas of the Soviet Union.
(3)

Not all Muslims “speak” Arabic. For example, Iranians speak Farsi, and there are a variety of languages spoken in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country; Bahasa is the main language. In the Philippines, a country with hundreds of languages has adopted English as language of unity. Muslim separatists are fighting to change that here and everywhere else Muslims are on the move.

Many Muslims were called to Da’wa centuries ago. Strangely enough, most of the world’s Muslim don’t speak or read Arabic, including Muslims in both Europe and in North America. Prayers are memorized and repeated with a rough understanding of what they mean as, according to Islamic tradition and the insistence of Muslim scholars, only prayers said in Arabic are authentic and pleasing to Allah. Imams and other scholars have job security because the majority of Muslims have no idea what is in the Koran, the sira, the ahadiths, or what they mean. They rely on others to explain these documents and traditions. Of course after generations, people can rely on word of mouth, passing cultural information from father to son, mother to daughter, but the majority of people have no way of checking for themselves what is in those documents on which they base their entire existence. But America is different from the Muslim world. Most are literate and education is the door to the America mind. Americans won’t accept ideas that they can’t check for themselves. Americans coming to Islam through Da’wa would eventually want to learn Arabic.

The United States came up short after 9/11 because few in service are qualified Arabic speakers and fewer yet understand the mind of the Muslim and little knowledge of the many cultures that have adopted Arabic as a first language as Islam was spread across the world through conquest, trade, and Da’wa, the call to Islam. Understanding the mind the Bedouin and the Arab is important because the predominate strain of Arab culture governs all Muslim life, whether in Indonesia, Tunisia, Iran, France, Britain, Canada, and, even the United States, all countries with distinctly different base cultures.

But why should non-Muslims North Americans learn Arabic? Canadians should learn Islam because they have a larger number of Muslims than does the United States for they have had a more liberal asylum policy that is rapidly changing their culture. For self-defense, Canadians need to know about the people with whom they are now struggling.

The United States isn’t yet to the point of struggle with Muslims, although there are some that are irritated with their Muslim neighbors. Americans should become knowledgeable BEFORE a struggle becomes necessary.

There are other reasons that don’t involve culture not ideology. Some Americans should learn Arabic in order to protect their country, but is Arabic necessary for commercial reasons as many Muslims allege? Maybe, but most of the world has made a point of learning English as a second language, and in the business world, English is the Lingua Franca of modern times. Business is transacted all day, every day in English all over the world in the worlds of h