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

New Email Address:

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

CAIR's Coup

The Left have been silent from sustained delight. The Right have been silent from sustained fright. About what, you ask? Both have reacted characteristically about the concretes of the Michael Graham firing from radio WMAL in Washington, DC, and the real meaning. A number of us in the "blogosphere" have been raising hell since the stuff started in July 2005, and we have not hesitated to spell out the full meanings and the logical consequences.

After Michael Graham had been formally fired, some voices on the Right dealt briefly with Mr. Graham and the issue. Their dealings with Mr. Graham and the issue were perfunctory at best and incompetent at worst, as we reported on samplings we were heard and saw. All of these Constitution-touting, flag-wavers on the Right dropped or would not pick up the hot potato.

Mr. Lowry fiuratively jumped on this train in the last yard before it left the station, but he did come aboard. It looks like he is staying aboard. As a syndicated and recognized columnist, what he says receives credit as "authority" compared to what we say on the blogosphere. We just hope he stays aboard because this train is headed for disaster. We wish him Godspeed and a loud mouth.

Here are samples from his latest article:

CAIR’s Coup
By Joel Mowbray August 31, 2005

Though there is some disagreement between local talk station WMAL and fired mid-morning host Michael Graham over the details of his termination, one thing is not in dispute: the big winner is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which called for his ouster, yet has never specifically condemned Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

In a year that started with it blasting away at the Fox television show “24”—because it had terrorists who were Muslims—CAIR has garnered more attention than ever before. Now with the firing of Mr. Graham, it has achieved perhaps its greatest feat yet—at least in perception, which is typically tantamount to reality.

And a stronger CAIR almost inevitably means a weakened culture of free speech.

Whether WMAL intended to or not, the station has handed CAIR arguably its biggest victory to date, and has certainly increased the legitimacy of an organization that deserves none.

It won’t just be radio talk hosts that will start feeling chilly when the topic of Islam arises. Television personalities, reporters, columnists, or anyone who works for a corporate interest that would bristle at being the target of a CAIR scare campaign would think twice before making even entirely defensible statements. It’s not inconceivable that media outlets could set up clear demarcation lines and declare certain subject matters or groups off-limits.

The threat of public controversy is apparently so strong that major media outlets—the top conservative talk station in the nation’s capital and the nation’s premier conservative publication—are fleeing from rather than fighting an organization replete with ripe targets.

Take your pick: CAIR’s radical roots essentially as an offshoot of a rabidly anti-Semitic organization long viewed as Hamas’ biggest political booster in the U.S., its co-founder Omar Ahmad praising suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islam” in November 1999 (according to a transcript provided by the Investigative Project), or its repeated failure to specifically condemn radical Islam or terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, dismissing requests to do so as a “game.”

CAIR’s key to success in spite of its ugly history is an odd combination of finesse and noise. Realizing that it needs to pass itself off as moderate, CAIR has become the master of making even intelligent people believe that they’ve condemned something when they haven’t.

All of this information is available to media outlets subjected to a CAIR onslaught. None has yet to dig in and fight, however.

(All emphases by us)

Mr. Lowry is getting there. Although he has yet to identify the logical consequences of the Graham-WMAL-CAIR incident, he implies them. Be assured that the enemies of the First Amendment, including our own beloved Supreme Court of the United States, most assuredly will.

Americans' need to ensure that this is merely a won battle for CAIR and not a lost war for America.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

It's Here! It's Here!

The following is "O.T.," you say. Well, it truly is not among our usual concerns, but it is quite on topic, in a subrosa sense--because "it" contributes to my morale, welfare, and recreation program. Without it, I tend to get the shrivels dealing year-round with Islamists, fifth columnists, and the vast American wasteland of nitwit media personnel, politicians, and bureaucrats, to say nothing of the cesspools overseas.

What am I talking about?


It's back!

This Thursday starts the college season with the South Carolina Gamecocks--SEC, I might add--and their new coach, Steve Spurrier. This team will bear watching because Steve might do for South Carolina a lot of what he did for us Gators.

A week later, the National Football League season begins formally. Until then, we will watch the final pre-season games as teams winnow down their rosters to the final 53.

Who cares, you say? I do. I am not much of a sports nut, except for American football (that pussy football from Europe and South America doesn't qualify for consideration). American football is, well, so American, and so darned entertaining.

For months now, we have endured the presence of basketbore, basebore, glop (golf), the Wimbeldonian who-cares trots, but have mercifully been spared hockey. Too bad that's coming back.

Now, it is smash-mouth time. It is time to take names and kick ass. It is time to open lots of cans of whup-ass. Break out the blue language manuals, Ma; it's time to refresh!

The most cerebral I want to get about American football, and that adjective is redundant, is to say how much it exercises underutilized emotions and does so safely. You can despise, hate, vituperate against, castigate, scream at, threaten a team on the television from the safety of your living room, and it all gets vented to the outside of you, leaving your equanimity restored and your behavior returned to socially acceptable levels. If your guys win, or if you witness great plays and athleticism, you know that football has put a cattle-prod into the cockles of your heart.

The start of the new season reminds me of the 1931 film Frankenstein. Seeing movement in his critter, Dr. Frankenstein has an ecstacy-spasm: "It's alive! It's alive. I tell you, it's alive!"


Monday, August 29, 2005

Walter Williams: Human Rights v. Property Rights

We have been saving this for a time when some of the news turbulence settled. Presently, Hurricane Katrina has pushed everything else off the news front: Roberts and the Supreme Court; eminent domain in Supreme Court versus Constitution; Israelis purging its settlements; and, even hyperfocusing by the media on the "failures" in Iraq. This is a good time to read the words of one of America's brightest and best sons.

If people understood what Dr. Williams writes in the objective way he means, most of America's problems would drop into minor status:


Human rights v. property rights

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. New London, statements have been made about property rights that are demonstrative of the paucity of understanding among some within the legal profession. Carolyn Lochhead's July 1st San Francisco Chronicle article, "Foes Unite in Defense of Property," reports on the coalition building in Congress to deny federal funds to cities that use laws of eminent domain to take private property for the benefit of another private party.

But it's the article's report on a statement made by a representative of People for the American Way, lead opponents to constitutionalists being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, that I'd like to address. According to Ms. Lochhead's article, "Elliot Mincberg, the group's legal director, said the case [Kelo v. New London] had been brought by the Institute for Justice as part of an effort by conservatives to elevate property rights to the same level of civil rights such as freedom of speech and religion, in effect taking the nation back to the pre-New Deal days when the courts ruled child labor laws unconstitutional." To posit a distinction between civil or human rights on the one hand and property rights on the other reflects little understanding. Let's look at it.

My computer is my property. Does it have any rights — like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are there any constitutional guarantees held by my computer? Anyone, except maybe a lawyer, would agree that to think of property as possessing rights is unadulterated nonsense.

So where do property rights come in? Property rights are human rights to use economic goods and services. Private property rights contain your right to use, transfer, trade and exclude others from use of property deemed yours. The supposition that there's a conflict or difference between human rights to use property and civil rights is bogus and misguided.

Let's go back to my computer example. Suppose someone steals my computer. Hasn't he violated my rights to my property and hence, my human or civil rights? Or, alternatively, if I throw my computer through your window, it's not my computer that's violated your human rights; it's I. Why? Because I've used my computer in a fashion that infringes on your human rights to your property.

That it's bogus to make a distinction between human, civil and property rights can be seen in another way. In a free society, each person is his own private property; I own myself and you own yourself. That's why it's immoral to rape or murder. It violates a person's property rights. The fact of self-ownership also helps explain why theft is immoral. In order for self-ownership to be meaningful, a person must have ownership rights to what he produces or earns. A good working description of slavery is that it is a condition where a person does not own what he produces. What he produces belongs to someone else. Therefore, if someone steals my computer, he's violated my ownership rights to my computer, which I earned through my labor, and therefore my human or civil rights to keep what I produce.

Creating false distinctions between human rights and property rights plays into the hands of Democrat and Republican Party socialists who seek to control our lives. If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or are in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property.

As President John Adams (1797-1801) put it, "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Adding, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of G-d, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Sunday, August 28, 2005

The Who and the Why of Jihad Financing

Posters of the awesome Pajama Pundit Brigade often lead us to information to help us understand what motivates the Jihad.

All eyes are on the gas pump. All the world is straining under the the agony as the price of oil inches ever upward. The owners of all that oil are making a killing as we are forced to pay ever higher prices for the use of their black gold to maintain our standard of living. But the owners of all that oil aren't happy because, as do the rest of us, they know that eventually the oils reserves are dwindling, their "Golden Goose" is losing its luster and all that they will be left with is a pile of sand inhabited by mostly backward and ignorant tribesman.

They can for see a time when time when the oil has run out, which means they have a finite window of opportunity to conquer the West WHILE (my emphasis) they still have the financial ability to bankroll the process." "papa bear," blogger at Belmont Club.

Jihad is an expensive enterprise. Jihadists see themselves as soldiers and are becoming better trained and equipped as our military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan can attest. The money to pay for all this has to come from somewhere. Wealthy petrobillionaires and others wealthy Muslims are backing the Jihad for Islam and for profit. For the glory of Allah and to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed due to revenues accrued through "an accident of geology."

Muslims not see their good fortune as accidental. To them, their revenues and resources are a sign that it is now time to press forward the case for Islamic triumphalism. The now have the resources to thrust the "true destiny of Islam" onto the world stage of history: Islam is to take over the world and the seat of power is to be the Caliphate.

Below is a list of some of the financiers of Jihad:

La liste secrète des financiers de Ben Laden
hattip: "papa bear"
De nouveaux documents secrets mettent en cause l'establishment économique et financier de l'Arabie Saoudite

Les commentaires, les analyses, les noms, les profils, les documents originaux

Le document reproduit ci-contre est la reproduction exclusive du document original en langue arabe



The Golden Chain list (or list of wealthy Saudi sponsors) was presented by the US government as Exhibit 5 in the Department of Justice "Government's Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements" in the case of USA v. Arnaout (USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) filed on January 29, 2003. The list was also mentioned in the Indictment of Enaam Arnaout on October 9, 2002 (02 CR 892). According to the US government, the document is "a list of people referred to within Al Qaida as the "Golden Chain", wealthy donors to mujahideen efforts".

Originally, the document was seized by the Bosnian police during searches in the offices of Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo on March 2002. The list was part of a computer file labeled "Tareekh Osama", or "Osama History", containing scanned images of several documents. The computer files seized in Bosnia were delivered to the US Embassy soon after the raids. Our team was granted access to these documents following an order of the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina issued on March 6, 2003.


Al-Qaida list of top 20 Saudi financial sponsors include 6 bankers and 12 businessmen, among which 2 former ministers. Only two on the list have not been yet identified with certainty.

According to our estimates, their cumulative corporate net worth totals more than $85 billion US, or 42% of the Saudi annual GNP and equivalent to the annual GNP of Venezuela.

These prominent businessmen and bankers own or control 16 companies ranking among the top 100 Saudi companies.

The complete list of Saudi donors and Al-Qaida recipients (25 names) include 8 individuals already named in the complaint. We should note that the most virulent Saudi statements against the lawsuit were issued by those listed in the "Golden Chain", especially Saleh Abdullah Kamel.

Among the most notable findings, we should highlight the following

-Confirmation that the Bin Laden family has been a major contributor to Usama, despite its statements denying such support
-Involvement of bankers representing the three largest Saudi banks (National Commercial Bank, Riyad Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp)
-Involvement of former oil ministers Sheikh Yamani and Taher
-Involvement of most of them in charity organizations as founders or board members



Al-Rashid Trading & Contracting (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)


CEO, Bakri Group of Cos
CEO, Al Bakri International Power Co. Ltd (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Al-Bakri Shipping Group (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Alkhomasia Shipping and Maintenance Company Ltd (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Red Sea Marine Services (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO, Diners Club International (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
Bakri Group formed in April 2002 a JV with the Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC) to operate in Middle-East countries, including Yemen. MISC leased super tanker MT Limburg when it was attacked on October 6, 2002, coming from Ra's Tannura (Saudi Arabia).


Saudi Binladin Group (SBG)
Bakr Bin Laden


CEO, Abdul Lateef Jameel Group (donated SR8 million to support Saudi Red Crescent Society's relief work in Kosovo in 1999)
Former Board member, major shareholder, Global Natural Resources Inc. (Houston, Texas)


Board member, Ibn Baz Foundation (President: Prince Salman, VP: Abdulaziz bin Fahd)
Board member, IIRO
Chairman, Al Afandi Establishment (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
CEO Al Afandi Germany (Frankenberg)
CEO, Sky Muzn Holding Co. BV (Netherlands)
CEO, Saudi Industrial Services Company (Sisco) with partners Xenel Industries and Dallah Al Baraka
Founder, Great Saudi Development & Investment Co. (GSDIC)
Founder, Arabian Company for Development and Investment Limited (ACDIL)
Chairman, National Committee of Saudi Contractors
Partner, African Company (Sudan), with Al Rajhi Bank and Dallah Al Baraka
Former General manager and shareholder of Al Amoudi Group
Owner, Gang Ranch (Canada), second largest ranch in North America
Owner, Skylight Corp, Georgia, USA
Owner, BSA Investments (complaint from LTV Steel Company, Inc)
US address: 6914 Los Verdes Dr Apt 6, Rch Palos Vrd, CA 90275


Born in 1941, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
CEO, Dallah Al Baraka (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) - 3rd largest Saudi company
Chairman Arab Radio & Television (ART)
Founding member and shareholder, Al Shamal Islamic Bank (Khartoum, Sudan)
Partner, Tamlik Company Ltd (with Mohamed Binladen Co., Saleh Bin Laden)
Shareholder, Jordan Islamic Bank
Vice Chairman Bank Al Jazira
Founder, Iqraa International Foundation


Board member, IIRO
Board member, Ibn Baz Foundation
CEO, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Company (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) - 9th largest Saudi company, 4th largest Saudi commercial bank


Board member IIRO
Board member, Ibn Baz Foundation
Member of the Committee for collection of donations for supporting the Intifada (Chairman Prince Salman
Chairman First Islamic Investment Bank
+300 companies
Al Birr donor
Bosnia donor


Founder and board member, Riyad Bank (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) - 7th largest Saudi company and 2nd largest Saudi commercial bank (Abdulrahman A. Al-Amoudi, Senior Executive Vice President)
Offices in Houston, Texas (Riyad Bank Houston Agency, 700 Louisiana, suite 4770, Houston, Texas 77002, USA)
Board member, Beirut Ryad Bank SAL (with Prince Khaled bin Turki and Abdullah Taha Bakhsh)
Board member, Saudi Arabian Refinery Company (Chairman Prince Khaled bin Turki, directors include Kaaki (bin Mahfouz) and Al Rajhi)
Shareholder, Middle East Capital Group (shareholders include Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, Henry Sarkissian -President Saudi Binladin Group International-, Sami Baarma -National Commercial Bank-)
CEO, Saudi Arabian Marketing Agencies and Company Ltd (Shareholder : Salem Mohammad Bin Laden) Ferrari, Porsche, Audi and Volkswagen dealer
Shareholder, Egyptian Gulf Bank
Shareholder, Golden Pyramids Plaza Co
Shareholder, Savola Snack Food Co. Ltd (with Saleh bin Mahfouz and Abdullah Taha Bakhsh)


Al Naghi Brothers Co (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)


Former COO, BCCI
Former CEO, National Commercial Bank, 1st Saudi commercial bank
Founder, Muwafaq Foundation
Founder, International Development Foundation


Board member, Ibn Baz Foundation
Chairman, Bank Al Jazira
Chairman, Savola Group (Sharbatly), merged with Azizia Panda (Walid bin Talal) - 13th largest Saudi company
Chairman, Makkah Construction & Development Company


CEO, General Machinery Agencies (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) Agent for General Motors, Wacker Corp, Mannesmann, Renault (RVI), Opel
Board member, United Gulf Industries Corp, Manama, Bahrain (with Khalil Bin Laden)
Partner, Savola Snack Food Co. Ltd (with Saleh Bin Mahfouz, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, Prince Mishail Bin Abdullah Bin Turki, Abdulrahman Sharbatly)
Founder of several scholarship funds (Berkeley, Oxford -including the Salahuddin Abduljawad Fellowship in Islamic Art History) through Barakat Trust (UK) and Barakat Foundation (USA) with Xenel Industries Ltd and Khalid Alireza


Born in 1930, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
Son of former Saudi Chief Justice
Former Saudi minister of petroleum and mineral resources
Former director, ARAMCO
Founder, Investcorp (Board members include Abdullah Taha Bakhsh)


CEO, Taher Group of Companies, 52nd largest Saudi company
Owner, Marketing General Trading Corp (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
Shareholder, Arab Company for Hotels & Contracting Ltd (with Ahmed Zaki Yamani)
Former Minister of State
Former Governor of the Saudi state oil company Petromin, under responsibility of Ahmed Zaki Yamani
Former director, Saudi European Bank (Paris), held 25% of the bank shares along with Ahmed Zaki Yamani






CEO, Ahmad Al Harbi Group
(L'Houssaine Kherchtou testified on February 21, 2001, during the trial of suspected al-Qaida militants in connection with the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on 7 August 1998, that he was welcomed at Miram Shah guest house in Pakistan before joining Al-Qaida by "Abu Ahmed al Harbi").


Board member, Saudi Research & Marketing Company (with Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Abdullah Bin Khalid Bin Mahfouz, Dallah Albaraka Group) - 20th largest Saudi company
CEO, Al Issai Trade Company (Daimler-Chrysler representative)
Deputy Chairman, Arab Cement Company (shareholders include Binladin Group, Bin Mahfouz, Al Rajhi - Chairman: Turki Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud)


CEO, Akel Trading Company
CEO, Akel Agricultural Investment Company LLC
CEO, Al Hussaini and Company
Board member of Al Waqf Al Islami Foundation (Netherlands)
Brother of Abdullah Osman Abdulrahman Al Hussaini, General Director of Al Waqf Al Islami Foundation, owner of Al Furqan Mosque in Netherlands (linked to MWL, Mounir El Motassadeq and Marwan El Shehhi
Family member include Walid Al Hussaini, representative of Abdullah Al Turki (former minister of Islamic Affairs, Secretary General of MWL, linked to Mohammad Zouaydi -Spanish procedure-)


Major recipients appear to be Usama Bin laden and Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee. They receive donations from 13 donors.


Receives donations from the most prominent in the list: Bin Laden Brothers, Al Rajhi, Sharbatly, Al Naghi, Bin Mahfouz, Adel Faqih, Al Kuwait


Former Secretary General of the Muslim World League and Rabita Trust in Pakistan, designated by the United States Treasury as SGDT
Receives donations from Suleiman Al Rashid, Abdulkader Bakri, Salahuddin Abduljawad, Abdul Tahi Taher


Chairman Al Shamal Islamic Bank (Khartoum, Sudan)
Founder, Al-Birr Society, Benevolence International Foundation
Former Secretary General, World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY)
Receives donations from Yousef Jameel, Ibrahim Afandi, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Mohammad Bin Abdullah Al Jomaih, Ahmed Zaki Yamani and Mohammed Omar


Son of Mohammed Saleh Bahareth (brother of Usama Bin Laden father's wife and tutor of the Bin Laden family after patriarch Mohammad Bin Laden's death in 1968)
CEO, Bahareth Organization (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
Shareholder, Triple B Trading GmbH (Germany) - with Hassan Bahfzallah and Shahir A. I. Batterjee, Secretary: Abdul-Martin Tatari
Receives donations from Hamad Al Hussaini


Receives donations from Ahmad Al Harbi and Mohammed Al Issai

We know who they are and understand their motives. Why are they still operating, and why is the United States still acting as a mercenary force in Saudi Arabia to protect these folks?

Friday, August 26, 2005

What We Think Americans Fear the Most and What Republicans Should Fear the Most

Why are President Bush's approval ratings dropping so much? We think we might know.

We are not "in the know," so what we write is a mix of speculation and opinion, but we have been around life's blocks quite a few times and we introspect rather well. We suspect that what goes through our psyches might well be going through Mr. and Mrs. America's psyches as well. If so, the Republicans have much to be concerned about, just as the rest of Americans have, regardless of political party affiliation.

The president's poll numbers are driven overwhelmingly by the status of the Iraq situation. Most people view that situation as deteriorating for us, that America is flinging young men and women as well as treasure into an abyss and getting nowhere doing it. Vermin, also called "insurgents" for some reason, flood into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Most seem to be trained, armed, and staged in Syria, whether they are Sunni or Shiite Muslims. They pour over the borders as though riding flying carpets. Vast sums of money come with them, all from the same places already mentioned.

Absolutely nothing effective ever gets done to control the borders and the influx of bad guys. In fact, little gets mentioned about the border problem by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of State. Our national border with Mexico mirrors this situation exactly. Republican legislators in the main act like a ward full of mental retardates who are unable to grasp any of the border problem at home or in Iraq.

Back in Iraq, USA military personnel seem to be sent forward as ritual sacrifices. It is as though our course is to keep feeding "insurgents" personnel slightly faster than they can kill and maim them. Occasionally these brave military personnel go on hunt and kill forays, which always seem successful, but results never endure--there never seems to be any forethought or plan to cause results to endure. Militarily, we seem to be bailing out a boat with a hole in the bottom, using a bucket with a hole in it as well. The mighty might of the USA never receives a call, and no one ever seems aware among military and civilian leaders that we have overwhelming might, the use of which could change this "war" in our favor.

We even permit the Iraqis to dare to consider an Islamic state, run by sharia law.

Hey, man, they struck deals, didn't they? They got a constitution, and one constitution is as good as another, ain't it? The important thing is meeting that deadline, not what is on some pieces of paper. Right?

Well, that is how it seems to us out here in fly-over country. We read, watch news, and think. We know people, and we don't have need for "Beltway logic" because it is imperative to us to know that 2 + 2 = 4, and not some agreed upon Beltware alternative.

We also see that Republicans seem to be engaged in multiple, recurring "circle jerks," while President Bush seems detached. There is no Republican leadership worthy of post-911 America. And, the President seems to have no fire in his belly nor any rage about what is happening. He won't even discuss border transgressions into America per se, and he seems equally unconcerned about the border situation in Iraq. He gives speeches constructed to give the illusion that he is on top of this "war," but he seems so distant. He won't even dare to name the enemy nor identify what this war is really about.

What we feel is an uneasiness, a growing apprehension that President Bush is becoming incompetent to deal with the two biggest concerns facing America: our own borders and the war in Iraq. That is pretty harsh, admittedly, but, you know, that is what we, and we suspect that other Americans, are thinking and are fearing the most. We think this is what is driving the presidential approvals so low.

We need a president fired up to make things happen, not to be content to delegate to armchair generals and bungling bureaucrats. Frankly, at this point, we would love to see President Bush fire some generals and his Secretary of Defense. If he won't light off his own boilers, then he ought to step aside to let Dick Cheney run the war and the border situation.

President Bush can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but he has very little time to do it, and he had better train all resources on a blitzkrieg approach. If he catches fire, then his poll numbers will climb into the high approval. Americans must come again to believe that Bush is leading and do so strongly. Right now, we think that Americans are wondering about presidential incompetence.

That sense gets bolstered by the sagging performances and words of tired old men and women in the cabinet and a bunch of peacetime generals who can maneuver within the Pentagon and the Beltway, but not victory on the battlefield. Republicans had better face this growing apprehension in Americans. If they don't, they will die by their own hands in the 2006 and 2008 elections and become the minority party for decades to come.

Much more important, Americans need to stop dying and being maimed in vain in Iraq while ne'er-do-wells like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia get away scot-free. The same goes for those suffering the invasion from Mexico. We need bullets and balls, not bureaucracy.

Notice to Readers

This week we have had two-fisted problems affecting our posting abilities. First, our ISP is having a "heap of trouble," and that means that we are also having a heap of trouble with internet connections and email. Second, we have been upgrading to a new computer, one complete with bells and whistles, and that changeover has not been going smoothly. We just don't have the services of Data, of Star Trek: New Generation fame, so we find ourselves getting into trouble, out of trouble, and back into new trouble with the greatest of ease. We have not run out of things to say, but we feel that we are typing with elbows and twelve thumbs, to go with our two left feet. Bear with us. This too shall pass, we are told...

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Four Views of Michael Graham from the Right

Michael Graham made a number of television and radio appearances on 23 August 2005, and each exposed some of why America is having trouble dealing with the Muslim Menace.

If anyone does not know by now, Michael Graham used to be a talk radio host on Washington, DC's, formerly venerable WMAL-630 a.m. station. In July 2005, he began giving diagnostic details about Islam as the root cause of terrorism. His station had no trouble with what he was saying until CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) started intimidating the station, at which point WMAL "got religion."

WMAL suspended Mr. Graham, but CAIR insisted that Graham be fired, and WMAL kowtowed. WMAL is owned by ABC which is owned by Walt Disney Company. Graham was fired because he would not retract or apologize for telling the truth, and he would not engage in some compensatory "community service" demanded by WMAL in order to bootlick Muslims in the Washington, DC, area. Graham walked away, head held high, in a state of moral integrity, while WMAL, ABC, and Disney slipped into complete dhimmitude.

We have focused from the beginning of this saga on the vast ramifications of this incident and the way the Right have almost shunned Mr. Graham. CAIR sought raw power with which to assault the First Amendment to the Constitution, to control speech, and to intimidate the corporate world further, and WMAL/ABC/Disney handed it over to them without even a whimper. CAIR and its ilk seek to inculcate the mental state of dhimmitude in order to end all resistance among Americans to America becoming another Muslim enclave, with all of the advanced civilization which has so characterized Muslim societies for 1400 years.

As we have stated previously, after reviewing what Mr. Graham said and wrote, we find ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS OF DIAGNOSIS OR PRINCIPLE ABOUT ISLAM in anything he said or wrote. His tiny historical mistake pales in comparison. Mr. Graham was fired because he dared tell the truth. That should seriously disturb every American and everyone from all countries who advocate truth and freedom.

On 23 August 2005, Mr. Graham appeared on three Fox News television programs and on one talk radio program that we saw and heard. In every case, he demonstrated that he really "gets it" with regard to Islam and terror. He has been doing homework. Furthermore, what he "gets" has integrated with his moral code because he sees the threat that Islam poses to his, yours, and our values.

Interviewing hosts demonstrated just how far America has to go before it starts to be able to defend itself at the level of root principles, instead of superficial assumptions.

Mr. Graham's first appearance of the ones we saw was on John Gibson's "Big Story." Gibson's approach was superficial. His response to Mr. Graham was that Mr. Graham had been saying things one is not supposed to say in polite company, but Gibson, almost winking, inferred that he was glad that Michael Graham had been some sort of "wicked little boy" saying these socially unacceptable things.

Next, Mr. Graham appeared on Brit Hume's "Special Report." Hume had none of the subrosa enjoyment of Graham's "wickedness," as conveyed by Gibson. Hume's demeanor conveyed that he was not pleased that Graham had spoken things not supposed to be said in polite company. Here the cognitive lesion of the Right was clear: One never criticizes another's religion for any reason at any time--presumably, even while another's religion's practitioners are cutting off one's head. Hume's approach to Graham was superficial at best.

Bill O'Reilly finished the televised interviews that we saw. O'Reilly represented the procrustean Right. He contested everything Graham said with his "beliefs" about Islam and Muslims, beliefs which apparently have not been augmented by knowledge. O'Reilly "just knew" that Islam has been hijacked, Islam is a great religion, etc., and so on, ad nauseum. When Michael Graham had time to say anything, he spoke the truth.

Finally, Lars Larsen interviewed Michael Graham on his syndicated radio talk show. Larsen gave Mr. Graham time to speak. He asked good questions about Muslim, Islam, and terror, and Mr. Graham rejoined with facts and principles which showed how well armed he is intellectually. Larsen could not go the whole distance with Graham. As O'Reilly, Larsen could not separate Muslims from Islam. That there are presumably some peace-loving Muslims blocked his seeing the nature and principles of Islam, despite the facts offered by Mr. Graham.

All four hosts are on the Right, and, in our view, represent the vocal Right. Most of the chattering class Right remain mute. It is a credit that they had Graham on their programs. That they apparently have never picked up a single book out of the many outstanding books available to learn the factual and principles truth about Islam stains them. They are disarmed. They have never armed. They do not know it, or, if they know it, they do not care.

Were we a rich as King Croesus, we would hire Mr. Graham in a flash. He needs to be in a high profile position, getting the truth out, in a CAIR-free environment .

Immigration and National Security

From FrontPageMag.Com

A comprehensive look at current U.S. immigration policies and their implications for defending against terrorism...

Follow the many links.

Immigrants Should Become An Asset Not A Liability

Have you ever heard of "El Plan de Aztlan, first adopted by National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver, Colorado, March 1969?

The plan presented for the first time a clear statement of the growing nationalist consciousness of the Chicano people. It raised the concept of Aztlan,* a Chicano nation, and the need for Chicano control of the Chicano community. Referring to the Democratic and Republican parties as "the same animal with two heads that feed from the same trough," the plan pointed out that to achieve the goal of self-determination, would require an independent political party with Raza nationalism as its "common denominator."

Essentially the plan is to use demographics and acquired political power to return to Mexico the land area conquered and then purchased more than 150 years ago.

There are several now mainstream politicians that present or former members of this group, one being the newly elected mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

With all the discontent and headlines about our border problems, the the only surprise for most readers is to learn that there is an actual plan of conquest by stealth.

Another big surprise is who is alleged to be complicit by inaction. This might explain the pitiful funding for the Border Patrol and why there are so few to patrol an enormous border. This might explain why there are only 19,000 spaces to house the 100,000 entrants that ARE CAUGHT daily crossing the borders. The other 81,000 must be released for lack of space and are directed "to return in one month for a hearing." Eighty-seven percent DON'T COMPLY with this directive.

Pretty soon we won't have to go to Mexico to go to Mexico. For those of us in the eastern part of the United States, we will only have to drive west, and for those of us living in the West, well, you will have merged as forty percent of Mexicans want to come to the United States and more than twenty million are here already.

"They come here to work." Well, yes, they do. Their willingness to take jobs at bargain prices drives down wages for Americans in their homeland. Their non-English speaking children overcrowd the schools, forcing teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time teaching them English, or they demand, and have received bi-lingual education as well as other services in languages other than English.

Diseases formerly found only South of the border or in other third world countries are taking hold in the U.S. for entrants slipping through are coming from all over the world. The sick entrants can get health care at taxpayers' expense and pregnant entrants routinely give birth to "new citizens" that may or not remain in the U.S.

Children that remain are allowed to be used for asylum or citizenship purposes for their parents and other family members. Those that return to and grow up in their home countries often return to demand their rights and privileges as citizens without ever acquiring the spirit of citizenship that imbues those that are raised here. Thus they have affection for nor desire to protect or improve the country, only to use its services and resources.

The screening process should be important, but it isn't as the courts rather than the INS have taken over the responsibility of who, after slipping in, remains in the United States. How can entrants be screened if they come in through the windows rather than the doors? Under the present policy, why would anyone bother to the process of getting a visa and waiting years on a list to be vetted?

Shouldn't immigrants be welcomed? After all we are a nation of immigrants? They should come as invited guests until they can prove they will be an asset to the United States much in the same manner we invite guests into our homes and disallow any that can not assimilate or be gracious enough to reward our hospitality with diligence, loyalty, and good citizenship.

Come to America -- Get a Ranch for Free!

This tops all stories about illegal immigrants.

From WND.Two immigrants slip over the border, trespass on private property, and are caught and detained by the owner and his friends. Of course they resist and they say that the owner roughs them up. They sue him and his friends and the judge awards them, the trespassers, the ranch for damages.

Imagine housebreakers coming in to your home, with your wife and children present. Wouldn't you take action against them to detain them for the police? Or, if violent, wouldn't you protect your family from these aggressive trespassers in your home? In my mind the actions taken by the rancher and his friends are equivalent to protecting not only his property, but our home from violators and trespassers that weren't invited to come in.

Apparently the law doesn't see it that way. Each state in the U.S. has a different view. Some require that the trespasser or housebreaker be given the option to leave, others allow you to shoot on sight. Texas must not be one of those.

Blogger North American Patriot has more on this story.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Victor Mordecai, Act One

An anonymous reader sent the following comment:

At Mon Aug 22, 01:52:52 PM PDT, Anonymous said…

you wrote this in 2004 now its august 05 and doesnt it seems that everything he said that day of 07/04 is coming to face right now.

What he was referring to was a column we published 22 July 2004. After rereading that column, we decided that the contents of the column merited republication:

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Words of Victor Mordecai

I was listening to the Michael Medved talk radio show on 23 June 2004 when his guest, Victor Mordecai, was introduced. What Victor Mordecai said during that hour was new and shocking to me. I had never heard of this man before, but what he said captured my attention fully. According to Michael Medved, Victor wrote a book in 1997 predicting the events, in detail, of 11 September 2001. I received the tape of that 23 June broadcast recently, and have just finished relistening to it.

Before giving some tidbits, I must state what intelligence analyst and terrorism expert, Victor Mordecai, gave as some important background information. He lives in Israel. His wife is an Egyptian Jew whose native tongue is Arabic; she has been monitoring Arabic and Farsi broadcasts for 20 years, gathering intelligence-applicable information. He obviously gets information from many other sources as well.

The conflict in the Middle East is fundamentally that between Shia and Sunni Islam. Since Ayatollah Khomeini set off the Iranian revolution, that revolution seeks now to take the heart of the Middle East, the oil producers. Iran stirs Iraq to get Shia Muslims to take it over, for its oil. However, Iran's biggest enemy is Saudi Arabia, because it is Sunni Islam. This conflict has been going on since the day Muhammad died, and the Shias have smouldered for revenge for 1400 years.

Iran has nuclear weapons, mounted on missles, as does Saudi Arabia. Iran made its with the help of the Russians while Saudi Arabia got its from Dr. Khan in Pakistan and help from China. Shia Iran plans to annihilate Sunni Saudi Arabia which is 50% Shiite. The goal is to have a huge nuclear and oil empire taking in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, as one huge Shiite expanse.

The USA will have to invade Saudi Arabia to seize the oil fields to prevent global economic collapse.

The USA remains in severe danger from Islam because of what the USA represents, which itself threatens Islam, and for what the USA can do to thwart aggressive ambitions in the Middle East. (This is not new information, but it bears repeating.)

Saddam Hussein was behind the 1993 Trade Towers bombing via Ramsey Youseff who in turn trained Terry Nichols while the Iraqi Guard trained Timothy McVey for the Oklahoma City bombing. Saddam also engineered the downing of TWA Flight 800.

Of great interest is this insight into Islamic thinking,coming from monitored broadcasts. As soon as is possible, Jerusalem must be destroyed by nuclear bombs. This will prove that the God of the Jews and Christians is weaker, reaffirming "Allahu Akbar," which means "Allah is greater." Greater means greater than the God of the Jews and Christians. On the other hand, if the Kaaba in Mecca should be nuked first, then it will prove that the Jewish and Christian God is greater. Muslims will abandon Islam and convert to Judaism and Christianity.

Is Mr. Mordecai a nut? He certainly sounded sound on the radio. He said that everything I have itemized has been covered in his three books (available on his website). I am very reluctant to throw away Mr. Mordecai without reading his material and following his website for a while, to make up my own mind. The foregoing, I present as a stimulus to the thinking of any reader.

posted by George Mason © @ 7/22/2004 01:25:37 AM

Victor Mordecai has been "blacklisted" by CNN and all of the standard networks as well as MSNBC, which is why you may not know of him. We have heard him numerous times, and at no time has he sounded like a kook, a conspiracy theorist, or the like. He gets information from his home base in Jerusalem from many sources within the Israeli governmental agencies as well as from many sources within the Arab Middle East. He predicted 9-11 in America, long before it happened.

This Endless Talking Is Getting Us Nowhere

Don't you get tired of the crowd that stands around, bleating while pointing fingers and complaining while our fighting me are putting their lives at risk to do what is necessary to protect this country? I wonder at those that proclaim that West, that we in America shouldn't adopt tried and true tactics because they would put us on the same level as the enemy. It is madness to think that we will never have to take on tactics that we find distasteful and "beneath us" to fight a ruthless and implacable enemy that gives heart to our enemy. The enemy then sees our refusal to do so as weakness and yet another reason for pressing on the attack and takeover.

Many cultures and civilizations have fallen victim to the "I'd rather be dead than give up my ideals" mentality. Soon enough we will have to decide what we are made of. Are we going to make a decisive stand or stand endlessly, wringing our hands, bleating pitifully about ideals while the enemy dismantles our culture from without and from within as it lobs bombs over the walls their sappers are at the same time undermining. This is what I see happening to the West.

A scourge has emerged from the desert and has overtaken much of the world. Powerful nations, their populations unaccustomed to war and deprivations, moan, cry, point fingers at everyone, and at themselves, not willing to take the necessary steps for self-protection, not willing to support the armed forces, the police cadres, the education system, or anyone else that violates their cherished ideals as they perform, doing what has to be done.

This isn't rocket science. Someone has to do what some consider to be a dirty job, that which is necessary to ensure survival. Someone must take the lead, make the decisions and act upon them rather than talk endlessly while the enemy .... acts. The actions they take benefit their cause.

I am not talking about the War in Iraq or just the so-called "War on Terror." I am talking about Islamic Jihad, lack of border security, rampant un-checked immigration that threaten our very existence. Rather than complaining and finger pointing, picketing the President's ranch, parading, publishing pamphlets, and the like, activities that aid the enemy, choose a practical activity that will uplift the country. There are dozens of problems in this country that are undermining our security and our existence that require citizen participation and unpopular or unpleasant measures to fix.

Sometimes as individuals and as a nation do what is necessary to make it. As did our predecessors who came up with timely programs and activities to assist the troops and the nation, why don't we? The Federal Government didn't do everything for them. Why do we expect them to do it all now?

The government can't protect us if we aren't willing to cooperate AND to take steps beyond what the government is unable to do. We could organize and enlist a civil defense cadre, or carpools to save energy, or come up with more up-to-date activities and solutions. Stop complaining. Do as our enemies do...act.

The Michael Graham Saga: Did Anyone Learn Anything?

Many people are finally chattering about and writing about the firing of Michael Graham from WMAL 630 a.m. by ABC. Awakening is good to witness, but it would have been so much more helpful to have awakened BEFORE going over the falls. However, far too many people have yet to catch on to how badly they have been hustled, and how bad the outcome bodes for their futures.

Let's let CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) sum up the saga, complete with their spin:

CAIR Action Alert # 466


Contact WMAL to show support for its decision

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/22/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today applauded a Washington, D.C., radio station's decision to fire a talk show host who stated repeatedly that "Islam is a terrorist organization."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said media reports indicate that WMAL-AM fired host Michael Graham last Friday after he refused to retract his anti-Islam statements, make an on-air apology and conduct additional outreach efforts to the Muslim community and others offended by his words.

The controversy began last month when Graham stated: 1. "Islam is a terrorist organization." 2. "Islam is at war with America." 3. "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam." 4. "We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam." [Editor's note: Every single one of these statements is true and provable, but you have to do your homework to know it. CAIR counts on manipulating your ignorance.] Other listeners said that Graham even encouraged a public "backlash" against Muslims. (Graham later claimed he meant a backlash of social pressure, not violent attacks on Muslims.)

In response, CAIR initiated a public campaign against WMAL and the station's advertisers after receiving complaints from listeners who heard Graham make those anti-Islam remarks. While WMAL initially stood behind Graham, it changed its position after hundreds of people responded to the group's action alerts by contacting the station and its sponsors.

"Just as Michael Graham has the right to hold bigoted views, so, too, does our society have the right to live free of hatred and incitement," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. [Editor's note: CAIR reserves the right to live full of hatred and incitement against all and all things not Muslim. This is the predator cursing the prey for resisting.] "We are saddened that Michael Graham would not take responsibility for his hate-filled words, but we do welcome WMAL's action as a step toward reducing the level of anti-Muslim bigotry on our nation's airwaves." [Editor's Note: This last statement acknowledges that WMAL, ABC, and the Walt Dhimmi Company completed their conversion to dhimmitude.]

Awad thanked the local Metropolitan-D.C. Muslim community, interfaith leaders and the many people in America and worldwide who contacted WMAL and its advertisers to express their concerns over Graham's bigoted comments.


1. CONTACT WMAL to thank the station for making Michael Graham's suspension permanent.
2. CONTACT WMAL ADVERTISERS to express your support for the station's decision.

Michael Graham appeared on 22 August 2005 on John Gibson's "The Big Story" on Fox News. He spoke into the camera, in essence looking us in the eyes, and he told the facts as facts. He spoke as a moral man upholding a moral position, and is moral presence could not have more striking. Yes, he indicated, he was fired, not cowed. He was right, and he stood by himself. He joins Representative Tom Tancredo as a man who told the truth and would not apologize for it or retract it. We should stand tall with both men.

Did anyone learn anything from this travesty? Some things come to mind;

o WMAL, the Always Behaving Cowardly network, and the Walt Dhimmi Company have completed their descent into dhimmitude. Were this pre-World War II, these would be those Europeans having readied themselves to live peacefully and willingly under Nazism. WMAL used to be a proud and leading station. ABC has never been any better than socialist Peter Jennings whom they just finished lionizing. The Walt Disney Company once stood as a paragon company that stood for something, before the groveling suits took over.

o CAIR won a very big one, and CAIR will make the most of this. CAIR is after the destruction of the American Constitution in order to dominate America with the rot of Islam. This victory will make them stronger adversaries, and much more aggressive.

o The Right, to the extent they woke up to what was happening to Michael Graham, awakened too late to effect the outcome. Their right to speak and express themselves has been dealt as bad a blow as the Kelo decision to the Fifth Amendment, delivered by the Supreme Court on 23 June 2005. Most of the Right do not realize that the time their microphones are on grows dangerously short.

o Americans lost big time. Sadly, most don't even know what happened, and that is just as CAIR wants it. So many Americans insist on hanging on to their ignorance about Islam and the extreme dangers it poses to them. H. L. Mencken referred to this type of American as boobus Americanus--and these people endanger us all with their militant ignorance. Those of us who see the truth and know what must be done have had our jobs made more difficult.

There is one other lesson learned from all of this. CAIR has organized itself brilliantly and carries out its actions with great efficacy. We on the other side of this have no such organization and actions. We have a sea of apologists, teeming with political-correctness-and-multicultural robots, and inefficacious intellectuals, journalists, media types, politicians, and bureaucrats. In this sense, right now, we are like Mr. Potato Head fending off the mechanized potato slicer/dicer/masher. We are late to the fight, and we are fighting with all of our brains tied behind our backs--culturally speaking.

There are many of us who know the truth about Islam, CAIR, and its ilk. We are carrying on admirably and well. We are like the Australian coastal watchers in the early days of the Pacific Ocean phase of World War II. Right now, the enemy is in ascendency. And it is unpleasant to acknowledge it.

We must keep up what we are doing as ceaselessly as did the coastal watchers. We will make the tide turn, but not tomorrow. To do any less is to join WMAL, ABC, and Disney in volunteering for dhimmitude.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

From Skeet Street: Iraq, The “Czechoslovakia” Concession?

Iraq, The “Czechoslovakia” Concession?

It was reported today that Islam will be the main source of Iraq's law and her parliament will observe religious principles. Parliament will also be restricted from passing laws that contradict Islamic principals.

This news will not be greeted well by the country’s women or religious minorities, but meshes perfectly with Iranian goals. An Arab News article, informs the reader of Iran’s position concerning democratic reforms. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, remains firm in his short and long-term program to the Islamic Majlis (parliament). Western ideas concerning government are incompatible with Islam and his new administration “bravely rejects all alien political ideas”.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “program,” a 7,000 word document, describes the United States and an Islamic Middle East as incompatible entities with the former eventually collapsing while the latter, inspired by Iran’s “divine system”, prevails. The Arab News article continues,

“The creation of an “Islamic pole” is the key objective of what the document refers to as “the 20-year strategy” of the Islamic Republic. It is not clear who developed that strategy and whether or not Ahmadinejad, who is elected for a four-year term, hopes to remain in power for two decades.”

“The goal of the “Islamic pole” would be to unite the world under the banner of Islam, as the “final Divine message” and “the only True Faith.” “

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s objective concerning the Iranian state is to control all aspects of its citizens.

“The state would follow the citizens from birth to death, ensuring their health, education, well-being and leisure. It will guide them as to what to read and write and what “cultural products” to consume so as not to be contaminated by Western ideas.”

Iran’s president is honest by divulging his plans and is not shy concerning his ambition. Hitler revealed his intentions via Mein Kampf, but the free world was unconcerned until it was too late. Will the West ignore Mr. Ahmadinejad as well? Will the shift in policy by the United States concerning Islam’s influence in Iraqi politics be the “Czechoslovakia” concession to Iranian goals?

If This Actually Happens, We Have Formally Lost the War in Iraq

U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law , Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:20 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Islam will be "the main source" of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position. If agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.

U.S. diplomats, who have been shepherding the process closely, declined immediate comment... Parliament would not be able to pass legislation that contradicted the principles of Islam, several negotiators told Reuters. One Shi'ite official said that a constitutional court would decide whether laws conformed to Islamic faith.

But Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak said that, at the insistence of U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the constitution would also contain language stating that the "principles of democracy" would be respected.

(Emphases mine)

If the foregoing comes to pass, Neville Chamberlain will be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, posthumously. Over 1800 American military members will have died in vain, not counting the tens of thousands maimed in vain. For a president who does not like abortions, this will be one of the biggest abortions in the history of mankind. Nevermind WMDs, etc., this will be as bad for the future of freedom in the world as is Israel's capitulation to the "Palestinians."

Bush has never named the enemy because he would have to deal with the stark reality that would follow. He would have to fight on the proper terms, and he just cannot bear to go against a toxic ideology because it disguises itself as a religion. This is religious correctness, and this is the fatal flaw of the Right.

Add in the distrastrous irresponsibility of Bush and gang regarding America's borders and immigration policies to another and much more major show of American weakness in the eyes of the Islamists, and you can be double damned sure that 9-11s are not far off inside America. These may well drive the 2006 and 2008 elections, and they may sweep the Republican Party into the dustbin. God help us if we return to Democrat Party rule!

There is much more to say about this perfidy, but a news item like this cannot pass without notice and comment. THIS IS VERY BIG NEWS, AND VERY BAD NEWS--if it happens.

Oh, yes, and as for the principles of democracy being respected, did not Adolf Hitler say something like this after being allowed to engulf Czechloslovakia? We are witnessing perfidy, evil, and cowardice on an even bigger scale.

You Have Just GOT to See These

If you are not frequenting, maybe even subscribing to, Sacred Cow Burgers, then you are missing some terrific graphics. Check out today's:

Are You Ready for a Second American Revolution Yet?

WorldNetDaily: City wants back rent from Kelo residents:


City wants back rent from Kelo residents -- Expects homeowners who lost case to pay hundreds of thousands

Posted: August 20, 2005, 1:00 a.m. Eastern

In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000.

The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a private party for development of an office complex. In the highly controversial decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell in the Fairfield County Weekly.

Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.

The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.

"We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case," the agency said. It warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around $57,000 in rent.

"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

Matt Dery owns four houses on the building site, including the home his 87-year-old mother was born in and still lives in. Dery's past-due rent, according to the city, exceeds $300,000.

It remains to be seen if a suit will be filed against the residents.

"From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, told the paper.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

This Is Worth Raising Hell About

Were it not for World Net Daily, this item might not have seen the light of day.
WorldNetDaily: Decorated Marine denied in-state tuition

What usually happens with disgraceful idiocies such as what Austin Community College is doing to this Iraq veteran is that they get embarrassed when the light of day and the disinfection of publicity puts their folly on parade. So, on behalf of this Marine and America, we turn over the rock and watch the vermin squirm in the sunlight.

Excerpts from the article follow:

Decorated Marine denied in-state tuition
Community college tells Texas native his tours in Iraq disqualify him

Posted: August 18, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005

Carl Basham (Photo: Star-Telegram).

Despite being a Texas native, a registered voter and holder of a state driver's license, a decorated Marine has been denied lower in-state tuition at a community college because he spent too much time out of the state while serving two tours of duty in Iraq.

Carl Basham says he was shocked when personnel at Austin Community College told him a few weeks ago that he didn't qualify as a Texas resident "for tuition purposes." Basham was born in Beeville, Texas, registered to vote in Travis County in 1998, holds a Texas driver's license and does his banking in Austin, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

"They told me that I have to physically live in the state of Texas for at least a year," Basham told the paper. "It kind of hurts."

According to the report, Austin Community College officials were unable to specify why Basham isn't considered a Texas resident, only that he didn't meet state requirements as determined by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. A spokeswoman said privacy laws prevent a discussion of Basham's case.

The higher education board is reportedly investigating the case.

The Marine's wife, Jolie, could hardly believe her ears when, after presenting multiple pieces of evidence proving his Texas residence, her husband was turned down.

"[The admissions officer] said, 'It's really your military service that's holding you back.' I couldn't believe that those words came out of her mouth," Jolie Basham is quoted as saying. "He's always Texas this and Texas that," she said. "It's always been his home."

Over two enlistments and eight years of service, the paper reported, Basham was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and other decorations. He served as a driver and an auto mechanic in two tours of duty in Iraq, each lasting seven months, he said.

Basham was honorably discharged from the Marines on Jan. 31 and hopes to work toward a degree in emergency medical care.

(All emphases ours)

Lightening Up, Briefly

There are two things very hard to sustain. First, "life as an emergency" burns you out in no time because the process of living is not a chronic emergency because emergencies by nature exist briefly. Second, tolerating "the daily grind" of the q'rap in the world wears one out fairly often and requires considerable replenishment to keep going. The news of the day falls into this second category, and it is relief from that sustained focus that we must have.

Well, try this.

Someone close to us sent us this. If you are not some nostril-flaring, vituperating, soap-boxing "young turk," you will find yourself here, and your funny bone will be tickled. Have a recharge, on us:

25 Signs that you've grown up

1. Your houseplants are alive, and you can't smoke any of them.

2. Having sex in a twin bed is out of the question.

3. You keep more food than beer in the fridge.

4. 6 a.m. is when you get up, not when you go to bed.

5. You hear your favorite song on an elevator.

6. You watch the Weather Channel.

7. Your friends marry and divorce instead of hook-up and break up

8. You go from 130 days of vacation time to 14.

9. Jeans and a sweater no longer qualify as "dressed up".

10. You're the one calling the police because those %&@# kids next
door won't turn the stereo down.

11. Older relatives feel comfortable telling sex jokes around you.

12. You don't know what time Taco Bell closes anymore.

13. Your car insurance goes down and your car payments go up.

14. You feed your dog Science Diet instead of McDonald's leftovers.

15. Sleeping on the couch makes your back hurt.

16. You no longer take naps from noon to 6 p.m.

17. Dinner and a movie is the whole date instead of the beginning of one.

19. If you're a gal, you go to the drug store for ibuprofen and
antacid, not condoms and a pregnancy test.

20. A $4.00 bottle of wine is no longer "pretty good stuff".

21. You actually eat breakfast food at breakfast time.

22. "I just can't drink the way I used to," replaces, "I'm never
going to drink that much again."

23. 90% of the time you spend in front of a computer is for real work.

24. You drink at home to save money before going to a bar.

25. You read this entire list looking desperately for one sign that
doesn't apply to you and can't find one to save your sorry old butt.

Then you forward it to a bunch of friends 'cause you know they'll do the same . . .

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Unfree Under Islam: Shariah endangers women's rights, from Iraq to Canada: by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Read all of this, and read everything this woman writes. We took a few tidbits only, in hopes of enticing readers to hit the link and read it all. Also, note that this giant of a woman now has a weblog (address at end of snippets).

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Unfree Under Islam:Shariah endangers women's rights, from Iraq to Canada.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:01 a.m.

In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Two cases demonstrate just how difficult that struggle can be, in the context of new as well as established democracies.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting--using the Canadian Charter of Rights--to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.

An Iraqi constitution is necessary, and the need for urgency is apparent, but urgency is a bad argument for passing a bill that strips half the nation of its rights. In Ontario, minorities come first and individual women within minorities last, living as second-class citizens and suffering in silence.

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament for the Liberal Party, was born in Somalia. She took refuge in the Netherlands in 1992 to escape an arranged marriage, and has had armed bodyguards after receiving death threats from Muslim extremists. She writes at

GUEST BLOG: Cementing An Agenda

From Skeet Street.

Iran's recently nominated president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to cement his hardline anti-West and anti-reform regime by appointing cabinet ministers known for their intractability concerning Iran's "glorious" revolution. Mr. Ahmadinejad recently stated here, "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

He is now working to consolidate an exportation (see here) of this "revolution" by actively courting fellow Islamic, but non Shi'a, nations with conciliatory rhetoric such as this, "The Islamic World's prestige, talents and capabilities are far beyond what it has today... Sympathy, understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among Muslim brothers can pave the way for the blossoming of all potentials, and restoration of the Islamic World's deserved prestigious status."

Could the upcoming December meeting of the Gulf security conference featuring discussion on politics between Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia be an Iranian pretext to dissolve disparities and concentrate on commonalities between those three nations, with special emphasis on Saudi Arabia?

Indeed, the Tehran Times advises an oil embargo as the best way to confront Western opposition to Iran's nuclear ambition. Will the Saudis and eventually the fledgling, Iraqi nation form a tripartite pact with Iran in an attempt to shut down the economies of the West, with special emphasis on the United States?

In light of this news concerning Mr. Ahmadinejad filling his cabinet with uncompromising ministers, the export of the Islamic Revolution and a threatened oil embargo, it should be crystal clear to Western leaders what his agenda truly is.

HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS KILLS: The Pentagon versus Body Armor for the Soldier in the Field

What do you get when you mix "make nice" political correctness via a cockamamie federal procurement policy + more than "bare bones" middle management? You get dead American soldiers. 28 months into this Iraqi "war," and our troops still do not have required basic armor to fend off enemy munitions. Why is that?

Sunday morning, 14 August 2005, Col. David Hunt, USA (Retired), Fox News consultant, laid it out. He recently published They Just Don't Get It: How the Washington Political Machine is Still Compromising Your Safety--and What You Can Do About It.

The Pentagon insists on using small contractors to make body armor, among filling other vital needs. It's more of that self-sacrificial federal service to others of compensating the little guy because the big guy has gotten the breaks previously. It is like minority hires, when the minorities cannot do the job. These small companies cannot do the job. We are being POLITICALLY CORRECT, and it is killing our men and women!

What is better? Contracting with big manufacturers, whether in America or overseas! The object is to protect our military members NOW. That requires remembering that there is a WAR going on, and "making nice" for the so-called "have nots" should be left for ice cream socials.

Second to this erroneous policy is the over-management that characterizes the Pentagon. Why have one person make decisions when twenty-five or more can provide "group think," i.e., true responsibility-less, dingbattery, if there ever was any. So many are have a finger in the pie that no one honchos the job and "gets-r-done."

After listening to Col Hunt, we turned to our print and electronic news sources. As if by magic, the New York Times corroborated this travesty, so well outlined by Col Hunt. Here are some tidbits:

U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor - New York Times, August 14,

For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.

While much of the focus on casualties in Iraq has been on soldiers killed by explosive devices aimed at vehicles, body armor remains critical to the military's goals in Iraq. Gunfire has killed at least 325 troops, about half the number killed by bombs, according to the Pentagon.

Among the problems contributing to the delays in getting the stronger body armor, the Pentagon is relying on a cottage industry of small armor makers with limited production capacity. In addition, each company must independently come up with its own design for the plates, which then undergo military testing. Just four vendors have begun making the enhanced armor, according to military and industry officials. Two more companies are expected to receive contracts by next month, while 20 or more others have plates that are still being tested.

The ensuing scramble to produce more plates was marred by a series of missteps in which the Pentagon gave one contract to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He was allowed to struggle with production for a year before he gave up. An outdated delivery plan slowed the arrival of plates that were made. In all, the war was 10 months old before every soldier in Iraq had plates in late January 2004.

Col. Bruce D. Jette, who directed a special unit at the Pentagon known as the Rapid
Equipping Force until he retired last fall, said the military's reliance on small companies to make body armor succeeded in spurring innovation. But in failing to acquire the rights to those designs, the military may be passing up an opportunity to increase production, he added.

Meanwhile, a burst of research is under way to develop even stronger body armor, though some earlier efforts appear to have slipped through the cracks. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Stephen D. Nunn said his group formulated a polymer that can be added to the ceramic plates to increase their strength. "Our material and assembly seems to perform better than anything else I've read about," he said.

But the group's contract was limited to fortifying helicopters. When that project ended in 2001, there was no money to extend the work to body armor, Mr. Nunn said.

(All emphases mine)

Do you ever wonder why we do not seem to be winning this war in Iraq, even though the propaganda machines say that we are? It is very, very simple. We are thinking ourselves into oblivion, because we are not thinking correctly. We are allowing nonsense to replace sense, and allowing clusters of inappropriate feelings to replace cold hard reason. Reason wins wars, not feelings. Reason armors our troops and does not give a damn about whether the so-called "little guy" feels good. It also sends most of those middle managers in the military into retirement or to work in the field.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Robert Spencer's New Book

We recommend the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer, [Regnery, Washington, DC; 2005; ISBN 0-89526-013-1]. It benefits readers on several levels.

First, for those very new to the truth about Islam, this book serves as an excellent introduction. Second, for those already somewhat familiar with the truth about Islam, this book refreshes and furthers what they know, as well as providing references for additional reading. Third, for those quite familiar with the truth about Islam, this book serves as a terrific handout to anyone needing that nudge to get started learning; for this use, it would be worthwhile to have a case of these books for handing out.

The author is highly knowledgeable about Islam—the truth about Islam—and writes in an engaging and clear style. Much of the referenced material will be familiar to those who frequent his outstanding website, Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch. What may be newest to most is the author’s debunking the lies about the Crusades, perpetrated by those who have reason to conceal the truth. At the end of this small volume, the author offers a number of useful suggestions about what to do about Islam, Those new to the subject will find these suggestions particularly useful.

To us, the most important aspect of the book comes from its point/counter-point style which presents myths, errors, and outright lies perpetrated about the goodness of Islam of today and yesterday--and then presents the truth. These myths, errors, and lies recur endlessly among columnists, journalists, broadcast media folk, and among far too many Americans. Here are a few examples:

• PC Myth: We can negotiate with these people
• PC Myth: Islam’s war teachings are only a tiny element of the religion
• PC Myth: Islam is a tolerant faith
• PC Myth: Islam forbids the killing of the innocent
• PC Myth: Islam was once the foundation of a great cultural and scientific flowering

The author presents many other myths about Islam and about the Crusades as well.

One of the best chapters, as we see it, is Chapter 16, “’Islamophobia’ and Today’s Ideological Jihad." This term, “Islamophobia,” has been coined and exploited in order to demonize criticism of Islam and intimidate the morally uncertain from even attempting criticism. It is a term, as we see it, arising from three sources: the ideological pool of postmodernism with its profound anti-Americanism; the United Nations' commitment to exploiting the USA while silencing it; and the forces of the covert jihad, such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), attempting to induce dhimmitudinous thinking, and fear into Americans. Since there are so many in America who are so morally uncertain these days, this term has traction among them. In the politically correct circles, “Islamophobia” equates emotionally to “racism,” and is intended to produce the same robotic response. Robert Spencer tackles this and similar issues fearlessly, and we bow in respectful recognition of his fearless fortitude and moral certainty. As one typical Islamist wrote Robert Spencer, a comment reproduced on the book’s front cover, “May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again. Amen.” You have to have a lot of “spine” to face such lunatics, and Spencer has that.

It is worth noting that this book has become a main selection of the Conservative Book Club and receives extensive promotion on Town Hall, World Net Daily, and NewsMax websites. We think this has much greater meaning than recognized generally.

Previously, when a book critical of Islam showed up on the National Review Online book service, CAIR went into high gear and pressured NRO to remove the book, even though it was said to be a rather positive biography of Muhammad, written by a priest many years ago. NRO caved in. That book left its book service list, never to return. However, Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) enjoys prominent display on the same National Review Book Service.

What do we make of the foregoing? We see it as, hopefully, part of some “great awakening” of the Right in America to the nature of Islam. Previously, the Right muted itself on Islam, kowtowing before it and providing endless excuses because, the Right said, "Islam is a religion, one of the three great religions, a religion of peace, a religion distorted by the equivalent of religious gangsters to their nefarious ends." Thanks to Spencer’s prior work, and the work of all of those outstanding contributors to the truth about Islam, and the march of the facts of reality, the Right may be awakening. Hopefully it will be enough, soon enough.

Our criticisms of Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) per se are few. As found previously in Spencer’s books, critically vital questions about (philosophical) fundamentals do not get asked or answered, and some religious correctness and philosophical errors peek out now and then. These do not detract from the overall value of the book for most people. The book will really serve more nearly as "Cliff Notes." Its title nicely defines its intended scope, with the operative term in the title being “guide.” That is what a reader should expect, and the author masterfully meets that goal. If this book takes boobus Americanus—to borrow from H. L. Mencken—who is almost militantly ignorant about Islam and and inspires him to read more, then it contributes to America’s future magnificently.

Mr. Spencer’s new book brings high value to readers, and it belongs in the libraries of even the most advanced scholars on these matters. So, thumbs up, it is; or, if you want, give this book a bunch of stars. And, be very grateful that there is someone interested enough and able enough to make these materials available and so digestible to a general readership. Even younger readers can manage this well-written book. Criticisms notwithstanding, this book belongs on our MUST READ LIST. From this book, go to his other three books and those of other terrific authors on the subject (see Recommended).

Is the American Right Improving re: Islam?

There is no satisfying answer yet to the question in the title, Is the American Right Improving re: Islam? At times, however, we tend to think the Right are improving, but they have not tackled the fundamental hangup which stands as THEIR Achilles Heel.

Clifford May from Foundation for the Defense of Democracies illustrates one of the crippling thought hangups of the Right.

The War Against the Free World

By Clifford D. May, Scripps Howard News Service, July 28, 2005

America is not fighting a war against Islam. America is fighting a war against Islamism.

...bin Laden...[is]...a renegade, an enemy of Islam who brings shame to the faith. (Emphases mine)

Mr. May should know better than to try to cobble together some bogus differentiation between "Islam" and "Islamism," and try to peddle the notion that we are not at war with Islam. These snippets illustrate one of the severe thinking handicaps hobbling intellectuals on the Right. Bin Laden, in fact, magnificently represents orthodox Islam, the apocalyptic side of Islam. His is the real Islam, stripped of fundamental contradictions and "moderations," which the orthodox Muslims rightly call "hypocrisy."

It does not take much reading to come to realize that Islam is Islam, that Islam is as Islam has always been, and that there is just one Islam at root. All these pseudo-distinctions between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Wahhabi, moderate, and any other are mere superficialities. Islam is what it says it is, and it has not deviated since 900 C.E. There is no "Islam vs Islamism." It is all Islam, and bin Laden is the real meaning of Islam, just as much as Khameini in Iran. Bin Laden does not bring shame to the faith; he brings glory to Islam in its authentic meaning, just as the mullahs of Iran glorify Islam.

And, yes, we are at war with Islam. From the Right, all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot make this "Humpty Dumpty" be what he is not. People die and suffer greatly because of the war with Islam. This is a war that Islam declared on us. The Right had no trouble at the time, nor now, knowing that we were at war with Japan and Nazi Germany, not selected individuals. The same truth applies to Islam. Why the reticence to identify the material provided by ones' senses?

Sometimes there are suggestions that some on the Right are improving. Michael Medved on his talk radio show will now at least interview people like Dr. Robert Morey and Victor Mordecai, experts who take very reasoned, hard-lined, and consistent positions against Islam, something Mr. Medved cannot yet do. Yet, he will now talk critically about Islam. A year or so ago, he was caught up so much in right wing political correctness, which in part takes the form of religious correctness, that it made him sound like Mr. May's comment. He inches now toward acknowledging that the war is with Islam, and the problem IS Islam. Michael Savage is the closest to naming the full truth of all of the syndicated hosts I hear, and Sean Hannity is the farthest away.

Where I live, we have a local conservative talk radio host in the afternoons who now speaks favorably of the need for profiling Muslims. It seems that the events of 7 and 21 July 2005 in London moved his thinking a little farther down the line and slightly away from his zealous religious correctness. He seems mute these days about terrorism arising from hijacked Islam, and the usual line that the politically correct spout.

Alas, however, political correctness on the Right still reigns. When Representative Tom Tancredo's remarks to a radio interview circulated, right wing talk radio hosts either were silent or went nuts condemning the congressman. They attacked their interpretation of what he said, not what the congressman actually said. The notion of even thinking about attacking the cardinal Muslim holy sites turned so many of these syndicated radio hosts rabid. Their religious correctness took over their thought processes and banished rational thought from their minds.

Then, even more disturbing, has been the response of the right wing, particularly right wing talk radio, to the events at radio station WMAL, 630 a.m., in Washington, DC. In July 2005, as we documented on this blog, talk show host Michael Graham spoke critically of Islam. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) went into high gear to mobilize its claque to harrass WMAL into dhimmitude, into making WMAL kowtow and apologize. A few days later, Mr. Graham published an explanatory article on Jewish World Review. This article plus the harrassment by CAIR against WMAL and its advertisers produced the dhimmi response in WMAL, and Mr. Graham was suspended without pay. Mr. Graham's article contained one, really minor, historical error but was otherwise absolutely correct about Islam and its role in contemporary terrorism. Mr. Graham's replacement host, Geoff Metcalf, spoke about the formalized lying practices used by Islam, about which he was 100% correct, and he came under fire from CAIR.

CAIR had two purposes in its assault on WMAL. The short-range purpose was to induce a dhimmitudinous state of mind in WMAL directly, with expectations that the fright would ripple outward to scare other stations and their hosts out of criticizing Islam. The longer-range purpose was to shut down free speech, in essence, to abrogate the first amendment by having dhimmis censor themselves. These purposes go far beyond, but immediately they play into the hands of people like Senator Harkin who want to shut down right wing talk radio all together. The implications and ramifications are huge for America.

So, what has been the response of syndicated right wing talk radio to the WMAL situation? That's just what the problem is: there has been no response. These people, under the precedent of threat to their existence and to our free speech, have said little or nothing. I myself have heard nothing from Medved, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Larson, or anyone else on local or national right wing talk radio [of course, something might have escaped my catching it, but, if so, it was fleeting and really "beneath the radar"]. Other than Diana West and World Net Daily, where are the right wing press and related media? Fox News? Nothing, and nothing could disturb me more--political correctness of the right has gotten their tongues. Better said, it has gotten their minds.

It is wrong to accuse the Left and the amorphous middle about succumbing to political correctness while leaving out the Right. The Right may be even more dangerous with their brand of political correctness. Look, even the President of the United States will not name the enemy we are dealing with in this nebulously named "war on terror." He will talk of the enemies having hateful ideology, but he won't name it. He is already talking like a semi-dhimmi.

Those Islamists engaged in this war from Islam against the West fully recognize how political correctness has so many in America paralyzed. CAIR and similar organizations use it against us all the time, with great effectiveness. We are letting our enemies turn us into a nation of dhimmis, in preparation for becoming an Islamic state.

Her words are so important, that this statement by Bat Ye'Or regarding making us mental dhimmis FIRST cannot be over-stressed:

Dhimmitude is characterised by the victim's siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors' hateful behavior, and by the destruction of the victim's own self by a mental enslavement of love and admiration toward his oppressors. Willfully serving his oppressors, the dhimmi loses the sense of his own rights and humanity. He loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice, and the dhimmi justifies the injustices done against him because he is utterly destroyed as a human being.

Yes, there are some inklings of improvement. With the publication of Robert Spencer's new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), the Right seem to be mobilizing. Even the National Review Book Service which dhimmied before CAIR to remove Fr. Menzies' book about Muhammad from its offerings, now pushes the Spencer book. So do Town Hall, World Net Daily, and NewsMax. Even the Conservative Book Club has made it a major selection. Not too long ago, pushing material critical of Islam was too much for too many on the Right--it was religiously incorrect. Time, bombings, and continuing slaughters might be turning the tide to the right. We can only hope.

From our perspective, the Right is still changing insufficiently in terms of quality and quantity. It's fundamental lesion is its militant blindness to seeing and naming the truth. Until it does, it is just another drayhorse in harness, pulling along with the Left, down the wrong road.